Objective To compare the coping patterns of physicians and clinical psychologists when confronted with clinical ethical dilemmas and to explore consistency across different dilemmas.
Population 88 clinical psychologists and 149 family physicians in Israel.
Method Six dilemmas representing different ethical domains were selected from the literature. Vignettes were composed for each dilemma, and seven possible behavioural responses for each were proposed, scaled from most to least ethical. The vignettes were presented to both family physicians and clinical psychologists.
Results Psychologists’ aggregated mean ethical intention score, as compared with the physicians, was found to be significantly higher (F(6, 232)=22.44, p<0.001, η2=0.37). Psychologists showed higher ethical intent for two dilemmas: issues of payment (they would continue treating a non-paying patient while physicians would not) and dual relationships (they would avoid treating the son of a colleague). In the other four vignettes, psychologists and physicians responded in much the same way. The highest ethical intent scores for both psychologists and physicians were for confidentiality and a colleague’s inappropriate practice due to personal problems.
Conclusions Responses to the dilemmas by physicians and psychologists can be categorised into two groups: (1) similar behaviours on the part of both professions when confronting dilemmas concerning confidentiality, inappropriate practice due to personal problems, improper professional conduct and academic issues and (2) different behaviours when confronting either payment issues or dual relationships.
- ethical dilemmas
- ethical intent
- dual relationships
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval Ethics Committee Psychology Department, Bar-Ilan University.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Survey of the frequency and perceived stressfulness of ethical dilemmas encountered in UK veterinary practice
- Do French lay people and health professionals find it acceptable to breach confidentiality to protect a patient’s wife from a sexually transmitted disease?
- Mental health issues and psychological factors in athletes: detection, management, effect on performance and prevention: American Medical Society for Sports Medicine Position Statement—Executive Summary
- ‘Managing scarcity’– a qualitative study on volunteer-based healthcare for chronically ill, uninsured migrants in Berlin, Germany
- What keeps family physicians busy in Portugal? A multicentre observational study of work other than direct patient contacts
- Medical professionalism in the age of online social networking
- ‘Doctors can’t be doctors all of the time’: a qualitative study of how general practitioners and medical students negotiate public-professional and private-personal realms using social media
- Evaluating interventions to improve ethical decision making in clinical practice: a review of the literature and reflections on the challenges posed
- Military physicians’ ethical experience and professional identity: a Canadian perspective
- Sexually inappropriate behaviour in demented elderly people