Title
Clinical Ethical Decision Making: An Investigation Of The Rationales Used To Justify Doing Less Than One Believes One Should
Abstract
A sample (N = 102) of mental health practitioners (75% nondoctoral; 25% doctoral) participated in a survey study that assessed reasons used by clinicians to resolve professional ethical conflicts. Results were consistent with expectations and suggested that although practitioners do evaluate what should be done in ethical conflict situations in line with existing ethical guidelines, they may not always be willing to implement this ideal. This study suggested that when faced with an ethical conflict, professionals tend to think in terms of formal codes of ethics and relevant legal guidelines in determining what they should do, but are more likely to respond to personal values and practical considerations in determining what they actually would do if faced with the situation.
Publication Date
6-1-1991
Publication Title
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice
Volume
22
Issue
3
Number of Pages
235-239
Document Type
Article
Personal Identifier
scopus
DOI Link
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.22.3.235
Copyright Status
Unknown
Socpus ID
0026175023 (Scopus)
Source API URL
https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/0026175023
STARS Citation
Smith, Todd S.; McGuire, John M.; and Abbott, David W., "Clinical Ethical Decision Making: An Investigation Of The Rationales Used To Justify Doing Less Than One Believes One Should" (1991). Scopus Export 1990s. 1240.
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/scopus1990/1240