Ethics Assessment
Ethics Assessment
Practice of Psychology
Recitation 10
Özgün Özakay
1. Ethics in
Assessment
CASE 1
Mr. and Mrs. Mean’s son, Mark aged 3 years, was diagnosed with severe
autism. Consequently, they placed him in an inpatient facility for
treatment. Mark’s symptoms included head banging and other self-
injurious behavior. Although several treatments were tried after his
admission, none were successful. After about 6 months, Dr. Smith, the
chief psychologist at the facility, approached the parents. She informed
them that all of the conventional treatments had failed but that the staff
would like to try an experimental, electroshock therapy. She indicated
that they would have to sign a special form giving them consent to use
the treatment. She indicated this was the only alternative that had any
possibility of helping Mark. In addition, she told them that if they did not
give permission, they would have to move Mark out of the facility
because he was becoming too difficult to control. Mr. and Mrs. Mean felt
confused and concerned about the use of a painful treatment with their
child, who was still a toddler. They also felt “on the spot” because the
only alternative treatment facility was over 100 miles away.
Reluctantly, they signed the agreement. On returning home, however, they
called Dr. Samuels, the psychologist who initially diagnosed Mark. He
indicated that although he had not seen Mark’s treatment history, there
were several new treatments that had been successful with children like
Mark. He also recommended another hospital where these treatments were
being used. On the basis of this information, the Means decided to move
Mark to the new facility, even though it was further from their home.
CASE 2
Dr. Anya Sharma is contacted by the Human Resources department of a large manufacturing
company. The company wants Dr. Sharma to perform a psychological evaluation of an
employee, Mr. Ben Carter, who is returning to work after an extended medical leave for stress
and anxiety. The HR representative provides Dr. Sharma with Mr. Carter's job description, recent
performance reviews noting some interpersonal difficulties, and a brief summary from his
primary care physician stating he is medically cleared to return. The HR representative
emphasizes that the company needs to ensure Mr. Carter is "stable" and "not a risk" to other
employees and asks for a clear recommendation on whether he is fit to return to his specific
role, ideally based primarily on objective personality testing. They also suggest that if the test
results show any signs of "sensitivity" or "anxiety," he might be better suited for a less
demanding position. Dr. Sharma is told that Mr. Carter has been informed the assessment is a
"standard procedure" for employees returning from extended leave.
Some Considerations