Consent, disclosure, and waiver for the forensic psychological evaluation: Rethinking the roles of psychologist and lawyer

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 437-445

  Foote, William E ^a,d   Shuman, Daniel W ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Southern Methodist University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Disclosure for evaluation; Forensic psychological evaluation; Informed consent; Waiver of rights

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749483122     PISSN: 07357028     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.437     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. American Bar Association. (2002). Model rules of professional conduct: Rule 1.0 terminology. Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.abanet.org/cpr/ mrpc/rule_1_0.html
2. American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
3. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
4. Bernet, W. M. D. (1997). Practice parameters for the forensic evaluation of children and adolescents who may have been physically or sexually abused. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 3, 423-442.
5. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
6. Chowdhury, A. N. (1996). No confidentiality in forensic psychiatry: A debate. Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 22(1-2), 13-15.
7. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.
8. Connell, M. (2006). Notification of purpose in custody evaluations: Informing the parties and their counsel. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 446-451.
9. FED. R. CIV. P. 35.
10. FED. R. CIV. P. 9(g).
11. Foote, W. E., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2005). Evaluating sexual harassment: Psychological, social and legal considerations in forensic examinations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12. Garcia-Vazquez v. Frito Lay Snacks Caribbean, Inc., No. 97-CV-1313, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1699 (D.P.R. Feb. 16, 2001).
13. Greenberg, S. (2005, August). Psychologists in the courtroom: Possibilities and pitfalls. Invited Plenary Address at the 113th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
14. Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 50-57.
15. Gutheil, T. G., Bursztajn, H., Brodsky, A., & Strasburger, L. H. (2000). Preventing "critogenic" harms: Minimizing emotional injury from civil litigation. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 28, 5-18.
16. Haller, L. H. (2002). The forensic evaluation and court testimony. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 11, 689-704.
17. Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Plenum Press.
18. Kalichman, S. C. (1993). Mandated reporting of suspected child abuse: Ethics, law, & policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19. Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2001). Ethical issues in personality assessment in forensic psychology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 242-254.
20. Kovera, M. B., & Cass, S. A. (2002). Compelled mental health examinations, liability decisions, and damage awards in sexual harassment cases: Issues for jury research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 96-114.
21. Lande, R. G. (2001). Videotaping, informed consent and forensic psychiatry. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 29, 53-64.
22. Martelli, M. F., Zasler, N. D., & Grayon, R. (1999). Ethical considerations in medicolegal evaluation of neurologic injury and impairment following acquired brain injury. NeuroRehabilitation, 13, 45-66.
23. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
24. Miller, R. D. (2001). The D.A. made me do it - Compulsory capital sentencing evaluations. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 29, 409-431.
25. Ogloff, J. R. P. (1999). Ethical and legal contours of forensic psychology. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: State of the discipline (pp. 405-420). New York: Kluwer.
26. Ornish, S. A., Mills, M. J., & Ornish, M. C. (1996). Prearraignment forensic evaluations: Toward a new policy. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 24, 453-470.
27. Radelet, M. L., & Barnard, G. W. (1986). Ethics and the psychiatric determination of competency to be executed. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 14, 37-53.
28. Rogers, R. (1987). Ethical dilemmas in forensic evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 5, 149-160.
29. Schloendorff v. Soc'y of N.Y. Hosp., 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914).
30. Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2000).
31. Shuman, D. (1993). The use of empathy in forensic examinations. Ethics & Behavior 3(3-4), 289-302.
32. Shuman, D., & Foote, W. E. (2000). Jaffee v. Redmond's impact: Life after the supreme court's recognition of a psychotherapist-patient privilege. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 479-487.
33. Shuman, D. W., Greenberg, S., Heilbrun, K., & Foote, W. E. (1998). An immodest proposal: Is it time to bar treating mental health professionals from the courtroom? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 16, 509-523.
34. Simon, R. I., & Wettstein, R. M. (1997). Toward the development of guidelines for the conduct of forensic psychiatric examinations. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25(1), 17-30.
35. Wenzel, T. (2002). Forensic evaluation of sequels to torture. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 15, 611-615.