Ethical psychological practice is essential for beneficiaries’ protection and welfare. This survey research addressed a specific issue, namely compliance with and beliefs about ethical principles and standards of psychologists from the Romanian national law enforcement and firefighting organizations. A total of 140 psychologists, 60.08% of target group members, rated frequency and ethical character of 139 ethically questionable behaviors. Several positive ethical elements were found as lack of almost universal behaviors and many rare behaviors (46.04%). Among the ethical problems found were counted: behaviors and beliefs related to the involvement in ethical practice promotion among psychologists and to the interaction with coordinating and homologous psychologists in the professional or ethical impasse situations. The highest quality ratings of resources for ethical practice guiding and training were made for Code of Deontology and the lowest for legal cases. Several solutions were proposed to improve ethical professional awareness and practice of target group members. The present research showed the difficulty of finding benchmarks to interpret results of an ethical research and the need to approach ethical issues not only from the quantitative view but also from qualitative and/or transcultural view.

In 1964, Fact magazine sent a survey to American psychiatrists asking them to comment on Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's mental health status. Respondents described Goldwater in very negative terms using the common psychiatric jargon of the time. The American Psychiatric Association realized that this affair damaged the professional integrity of psychiatry and, as a result, in 1973 issued the so-called “Goldwater rule.” Under this rule, psychiatrists are not allowed to comment on the mental health of public figures without a direct interview and without their permission. In 2016, as a result of Donald Trump's rise to power, there has been some public pressure to overcome the Goldwater rule. This article acknowledges that times have changed and that debates about rescinding the Goldwater rule are welcome; however, it also defends the view that the Goldwater rule preserves considerable ethical soundness. This conclusion is reached by analyzing some of the main considerations in this debate: free speech, the “duty to warn,” the suitability of the direct interview, and the politicization of psychiatry.

Children with disabilities are being abused at the hands of their teachers denying them of a free and appropriate education to which they are legally entitled. Teachers have been using the word “discipline” loosely to justify abusive behavior toward students in their classroom. This article is divided into three sections. First, the article will discuss the current laws that govern special education and the use of discipline techniques in the classroom. Furthermore, this article will present legal claims students can bring against their teachers including federal claims as well as common law claims. In addition, various teacher ethics guidelines pertaining to the treatment of students will be presented. Second, this article will explain the many barriers a student faces when trying to receive a proper remedy for the harm they have endured. Last, the article proposes a variety of solutions to all barriers children face in getting an adequate education free from abuse.

Objective: This article reviews the issue of patients giving gifts to psychiatrists and mental health providers. Method: Anonymous survey of 100 academic psychiatrists measured prevalence of receiving gifts, type and estimated dollar value of gifts given, and psychiatrists’ reactions to gifts. Case vignettes illustrate clinical situations associated with gift giving and how failure to recognize motivation of gift giving may lead to situations requiring immediate intervention. Results: 71% of psychiatrists surveyed received (were offered & accepted) at least one gift in prior year (average 0.36 per month and 3.6 per year; $11.40 average [estimated] amount per gift). Group comparisons achieving at least a p < 0.05 significance: outpatient psychiatrists received gifts twice as often as inpatient, female and outpatient groups’ gifts were estimated as more expensive, a positive correlation was found between psychiatrists receiving gifts and psychiatrists giving a positive response to gifts, there was significantly more negative responses to high cost gifts (>$100) than to low cost (<$20), and outpatient psychiatrists reported interpreting gift’s meaning more often than inpatient. Conclusions: Psychiatrists are commonly offered and accept gifts from patients. Gifts communicate patient information and response to treatment. Although the act of gift giving sends important data to the receiving psychiatrist, including boundary violation issues, there are no agreed upon guidelines regarding how to respond. Future study should explore the meanings and appropriateness of a gift regarding type, cost, timing, frequency, intent, as well as how providers can respond to the gesture.

In 2018, a graduate level student filed a complaint regarding the use of exposure-based therapy for persons with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) experiencing violent obsessions. In the investigation, the licensing board expressed concern about safety of us of exposure and response prevention (ERP) with children and in public venues. The licensing board also struggled with accurate assessment of a clinician's efficacy in following the gold-standard treatment for OCD. Despite extensive research demonstrating ERP is a safe, effective treatment for OCD, stigma against exposure based treatments remain strong, even among clinicians. This commentary article discusses the specific licensing investigation and implications for change throughout the field of psychotherapy.

This reflection comments on Type III error—how the misrecognition of causal factors shaping the onset, acuity, and duration of mental health symptoms may lead to the design of interventions that compromise the health of populations. Type III error reveals the ethical challenges of research designs that answer the wrong question. The argument offered by Schwartz and Carpenter in their 1999 article, “The right answer for the wrong question: consequences of Type III error for public health research,” is used as a foil to discuss ethical implications for population mental health.

This research investigates if ethical behaviors and personal finances are related using a large scale U.S. random survey called the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97). Fifteen indicators covering both ethical and unethical behaviors are compared to net worth for people in their 20s and 30s, who are called Generation Y. Breaking rules, stealing, and being arrested are associated with less wealth in this generation. Results suggest that among people in their early 20s, there is little or no relationship between ethical behaviors and wealth. However, as this cohort ages, a positive relationship between acting more ethically and wealth emerges.

From an ethical perspective, three values are at stake in the prevention of suicide—the inviolability of life, the autonomy of the client, and the care relationship between caregivers and client. These values can be integrated in the following way. The best prevention consists of a good care relationship involving intensive counseling of the client regarding existential questions. In this way, caregivers can increase the client’s autonomy and responsibility. Sometimes, however, caregivers need to intervene with protective measures to safeguard the inviolability of the client’s life. Caregivers strive for a reasonable balance between autonomy and inviolability by means of the integrating value of the relationship.