Dual relationships in psycholegal evaluations: Treating psychologists serving as expert witnesses

American Journal of Forensic Psychology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 79-87

  Iverson, Grant L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b Riverview Hospital   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENTIALITY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EXPERT WITNESS; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMED CONSENT; PSYCHOLOGIST; REVIEW;

EID: 0034024386     PISSN: 07331290     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (8)

1. Lezak M: Practical practices in neuropsychological assessment, or how to live within your patients' (hospital's, agency's) budgets, be responsive to their assessment needs, and live with conscience as well. Presented at Trends in Neurosciences conference, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, April, 1996
2. Greenfield DP, Huber H: Should doctors serve as patients' expert witnesses? New Jersey Lawyer 1998; 1317: 17-18
3. Strasburger LH, Gutheil TG, Brodsky A: On wearing two hats: role conflict in serving as both psychotherapist and expert witness. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154: 448-456
4. American Psychological Association: Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American Psychologist 1992; 47: 1597-1611
5. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists: Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior 1991; 15: 655-665
6. Canadian Psychological Association: Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists. Old Chelsea, Quebec, 1991
7. Saltzberg S, Martin M: Federal rules of evidence manual, 5th edition, vol. 2. Charlottesville, The Miche Company, 1990
8. R. v. Monahan Her Majesty The Queen v. Chikmaglur Mohan, Supreme Court of Canada, 2 S.C.R. 9, 1994