PSY 3100 Week 8 Critique 2
bdavis0613Instructions are attached
supporting doc attached
2 years ago
5
files (2)Presentation_critique_form_Rev1.docx
Swim_AmicusBrief_Emerich.pptx
Presentation_critique_form_Rev1.docx
|
Presenter’s Name:
|
Gregory Swim |
|
Person Providing Critique:
|
Brianna Davis |
|
Component |
Comments |
|
Case summary: Case was summarized in a succinct, easy-to-understand manner and was in the presenter’s own words. I understood the issue confronting the Supreme Court. |
|
|
APA’s brief: The APA’s stance was presented in an easy-to-understand manner. The presenter discussed relevant research included in the brief. It was clear how the APA was trying to contribute to the case. |
|
|
Opinion: I understood the outcome of the case and the presenter made clear how this did/did not coincide with the APA’s goals in their brief. |
|
|
Overall: This lecture was thorough, clear, interesting, and I learned something. The format was uncluttered and the length was appropriate. APA referencing was used properly and grammar/spelling was correct. |
|
Directions: View the assigned PowerPoint presentations and fill out the form – one per each student’s presentation you are critiquing. For each component, write your comments. Write as much or as little as you feel necessary; the comments table should expand as you write. Remember, your critique will be graded as well – 25 points per critique. Due by Sunday at 11:59 P.M. ET.
Swim_AmicusBrief_Emerich.pptx
Amicus Brief
Greg Swim
Florida Institute of Technology
PSY3100: Law and Psychology
Professor Charette
April 17, 2024
Analysis of Amicus Brief
EMERICH v. PHILADELPHIA CENTER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INC (1998)
April 21, 2024
Greg Swim’s 7.4 Lecture Presentation
2
Introduction
3
This case was taken before the courts to examine whether and to what degree a mental health professional is required to notify a third party of a patient's threats of harm.
3
Key Players in the Case
4
Teresa Hausler
Gad Joseph
Anthony Scuderi
Philadelphia Center for Human Development
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC
Ronald Emerich
Toxic Love
Gad Joseph
Among his medical conditions, Mr. Joseph was diagnosed with explosive and schizo-affective personality disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Additionally, he had abused Ms. Hausler verbally and physically in the past.
Teresa Hausler
Ms. Hausler sought counseling to enhance her life, but she had her own troubles. Ms. Hausler stopped her relationship with Mr. Joseph a few weeks before the incident that sparked this action, as part of her ongoing efforts to improve her situation.
5
However, they continued to live together even after she stopped their relationship.
5
The Seeking of Help
Anthony Scuderi
Scuderi was a counselor at the Philadelphia Center for Human Development where both Mr. Joseph and Ms. Hausler sought treatment. He counseled both of them, which granted him knowledge of their dealings in life as well as their struggles. Mr. Joseph opened up to Scuderi in a phone call to him on June 27, 1991. Mr. Joseph discussed wanting to cause harm to Ms. Hausler for breaking up with him and actively moving out of the home. Scuderi was able to grant him a meeting just a couple of hours after this phone call. During their meeting, Mr. Joseph stated he planned to kill his ex-girlfriend, however, Scuderi believed he was able to calm him down to the point of being satisfied with Mr. Joseph’s retracting statement of no longer feeling homicidal. Scuderi allowed Mr. Joseph to leave the office after determining he did not meet the criteria for an involuntary Baker Act.
6
However, they continued to live together even after she stopped their relationship.
6
Is It Safe?
7
Ms. Hausler called Mr. Scuderi shortly after his therapy appointment with Mr. Joseph, informing him that she was on her way to Philadelphia to pick up her clothes from their shared apartment. Ms. Hausler inquired where Mr. Joseph was heading. Mr. Scuderi instructed Ms. Hausler to return to her new house rather than visiting the shared residence. Scuderi’s warning was relayed to her out of fear of what was expressed to him by Mr. Joseph.
The Fatal Decision
After convincing Scuderi he would not harm Ms. Hausler, Mr. Joseph left the office. Not heaving Scuderi’s warning, Ms. Hausler headed to the same destination as Mr. Joseph. Mr. Joseph found Ms. Hausler at the home and shot and killed her. Mr. Joseph called Scuderi after the murder which prompted him to call the police to the home where Ms. Hausler was found deceased. Mr. Joseph was subsequently arrested and convicted of the murder.
8
Shared Liability?
9
The administrator of Ms. Hausler's estate, Ronald Emerich sued the Philadelphia Center for Human Development and Scuderi, alleging negligence and reckless, careless, willful, and wanton behavior in failing to provide proper mental health care, not admitting Mr. Joseph to a mental health facility, failing to provide adequate warning to Ms. Hausler and others, including the police, and failing to provide adequate staff training and supervision.
The trial court gave judgment on the pleadings in favor of Scuderi and the Center, ruling that even if a mental health professional had a legal need to warn a third party, Scuderi's personal warning via phone conversation met that obligation. The court stated that Pennsylvania had not yet accepted this duty. The Superior Court upheld this verdict.
Why Did the Supreme Court Rule This Way?
The court based its holding on Pennsylvania's failure to adopt Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334 (1976).
10
They stated that the appellee had met even a Tarasoff duty to warn by informing Ms. Hausler of the danger and instructed her as to how to avoid it. The counselor had fully discharged any obligation he owed her as a result of Joseph's threats of violence.
10
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
11
A physician or psychotherapist must provide a warning to prevent harm caused by their patient.
The Court also ruled that when disclosure is required the public policy promoting confidentiality must give way.
A physician or psychotherapist is legally compelled to provide a warning when they determine—or should determine—that it is necessary to avert harm caused by their patient's medical or psychological condition. The Court also ruled that when disclosure is required to prevent harm to others, the public policy promoting the confidentiality of patient-psychotherapist conversations must give way. Where the public danger begins, the protective privilege ceases.
Goodman, T. A. (1985). From Tarasoff to Hopper: The Evolution of the Therapist’s Duty to Protect Third Parties. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 3(2), 195–225. https://doi-org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1002/bsl.2370030207
A physician or psychotherapist is legally compelled to provide a warning when they determine—or should determine—that it is necessary to avert harm caused by their patient's medical or psychological condition.
The Court also ruled that when disclosure is required to prevent harm to others, the public policy promoting the confidentiality of patient-psychotherapist conversations must give way. Where the public danger begins, the protective privilege ceases.
11
What did the Superior Judges Say?
12
A physician or psychotherapist is legally compelled to provide a warning when they determine—or should determine—that it is necessary to avert harm caused by their patient's medical or psychological condition. The Court also ruled that when disclosure is required to prevent harm to others, the public policy promoting the confidentiality of patient-psychotherapist conversations must give way. Where the public danger begins, the protective privilege ceases.
Emerich v. Einstein Medical Center (concurring and dissenting opinion). Justia Law. (1996, December 11). https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/1998/j253-96codo.html
Madame Justice Newman
Disagreed with the majority; believing that the warning was inadequate she suggested reversing the decision that dismissed the case.
Believed that a warning given by Scuderi was insufficient to fulfill his legal obligation to warn Ms. Hausler about a serious danger posed by Mr. Joseph.
12
American Psychological Association’s Stance on the matter
13
13
The APA urged the Court to decline Ms. Hausler’s estate’s view to impose a new duty to warn solely on mental health workers. They asserted; that should the Court impose such a duty, they should apply a professional judgment rule as an applied standard.
The APA thought the rule would violate the important position of client confidentiality and thus create distrust between the mental health workers and clients seeking help from them. The APA noted in the Amicus that other professions; such as lawyers, medical professionals, and even law enforcement are not held to this standard and thus, they should not be either.
14
APA asserts its stance in an amicus.
15
Unlike mental health workers, other professionals such as criminal defense attorneys are not required by law to warn third parties of potential dangers, nor are they liable in such situations.
Mental health professionals do not possess unique abilities to predict violent behavior or control dangerous individuals, which does not place them in a better position to protect third parties than anyone else.
The APA’s amicus posed four statements for their stance against a responsibility to alert third parties.
15
APA asserts its stance in an amicus.
16
Imposing a duty to warn on therapists is not proven by scientific research to enhance public safety; rather, it could undermine broader public safety objectives by potentially dissuading therapeutic disclosure.
Should a duty to warn be recognized by the court, it should be narrowly applied. It ought to be mandated only under circumstances where there is a specific, imminent threat of serious harm directed at an identifiable individual, to minimize negative impacts on public safety and the effectiveness of psychotherapy.
Ethical Principals of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
17
4.01 Maintaining Confidentiality
Psychologists are primarily responsible for safeguarding any confidential information they obtain or store, across all formats. They must also recognize that the boundaries of confidentiality can be influenced by laws, organizational rules, or the specifics of their professional or scientific affiliations.
4.05 Disclosures
…(b) Psychologists only divulge private information without a person's agreement where required by law or when doing so is allowed for a legitimate reason, such as: …(3) safeguarding the client or patient, the psychologist, or others from danger.
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.html
Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct are designed to guide psychologists towards the highest ethical ideals, serving as aspirational goals. While these elements are not enforceable, they are intended to help psychologists determine ethical behaviors. In contrast, the Ethical Standards provide specific, enforceable rules that psychologists must follow. These standards are intentionally broad to be applicable across different roles and contexts within the field of psychology.
17
Summary
18
The Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc. amicus brief played a crucial role in affirming the confidentiality obligations of mental health professionals. By winning their case, the brief helped ensure that therapists and other mental health providers can maintain the privacy of their client communications, which is foundational to effective therapy. This victory supports the trust between clients and their therapists, which is essential for successful therapeutic outcomes and protects the integrity of mental health services.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.html
Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc., 554 Pa. 209, 720 A.2d 1032 (Pa. 1998). https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/emerich.pdf
Emerich v. Einstein Medical Center (concurring and dissenting opinion). Justia Law. (1996, December 11). https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/1998/j253-96codo.html
Goodman, T. A. (1985). From Tarasoff to Hopper: The Evolution of the Therapist’s Duty to Protect Third Parties. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 3(2), 195–225. https://doi-org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1002/bsl.2370030207
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334 (1976).
Sunday, February 7, 20XX
Sample Footer Text
19
