NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
There are heavy debates ging n that regarding the issue f whether it is ethical and professional fr a psychologist t have personal relationship with his client, with his patient. This paper will be examining the issue f the question raised are and concentrate n the conditions under which the date has the right t interact with his patient. When approaching the issue f psychology we need first f all t understand what des the concept f this science mean. There are several types f psychology, which are quite different in their cre fundamental understanding.
Sme type f psychology is related t the individual well being, and the ther is mre concerned with the property and development f the society it represents. Date Konrad K. Michael in his ut standing wrk with: Keep away frm personality, stay case t personalities. The meaning f his wrd's basically responds t ur issue.
The true psychologist should be mre concerned with the verbal performance f his population, and nt individual. The purity f the experiment here matters the mst. As Kant argued, the well-being f the grup should always ut weigh the well-being f an individual. ne f the types f psychology is social psychology, the scientific study f hw people think, feel, and behave in social situatin's. This area f specialization draws n tw disciplines: silly, which focuses n grup's; and psychology, which centers n the individual. As in ther branches f psychology, social psychlgist's use a wide variety f research methods, including library experiments, bservatins in the real world, case studies, and public pain surveys.
Sme social psychlgist's conduct basic research t test general there abut human social behavior, while ther's seek t apply that research t site real-world social problems. Social psychology and silly are free confused, because bth fields study grup's and grup behavior. However, their perspectives differ. Whereas scilgists strive t understand grup behavior in terms f society and social institutions, social psychlgist's fcu's n individuals and hw they perceive, interact with, and influence each ther.
They study hw individuals exert influence n grup's and hw grup situatin's affect the behavior f individuals. The rle f psychologist as primary determinants f patients career development has been recognized bth t heretically and in research n careers. Blustein (1994) has synthesized much f the relevant literature in this area and fund that the data suggests the extremely important rle f the men (in ur case a psychologist as an advisor) as a media f clients eg identity and in creating the psychological environment within which their career development unfolds. nce a person gets sme external support in the issues f his wn matters, it becomes impossible fr him / her t resist the temptation f addressing fr qualified help nce again.
The fact f laziness begins t play its rle in this issue. The person is nt willing t take responsibility fr his r her wn acts when there is see with university education that can take care f it. Date Frank (1973) has defined such a situation as ne possessing the following features: the related between the psychologist and his client can be identified as a type f social influence exerted by a trained and socially sanctioned healer n a person r persn's wh suffer and are seeking relief, through a series f defined cntact's. In this case tw people playing together recognize the shared nature f effective psychological relationship. In the case when the client is having sme personal attraction t his r her psychologist that client is mre dependant n the presence f somebody that can understand and secure all f the worries f that person. At the same time the psychologist is feeling mre comfortable with his client als.
There is nt need t page the qualification r integrity; the possibility t say anything and virtually manipulate the persn's behavior suddenly appears. The relationship between dependent client and his psychologist becomes mre a question f ethics than f help r mental assistance. Mst f the unethical psychlgist's find the strength t use the power f persuasion in re t simply make their clients believe that what they say r d is very important fr the client and his r her future success in life. Experienced psychologist can persuade any person t continue searching fr help upside f clients wn perception f the world.
Persuasion is an integral part f human social life. Many people have a direct interest in king hw t effectively persuade ther's: politicians trying t win vte's, salespeople and advertisers hawking their products, religious leaders seeking covers, trial lawyers arguing before a jury, and fund-raisers seeking dating. Persuasion is neither inherently gd nr bad. Whether we see it as beneficial r harmful t individuals depends n whether we approve f the message. Persuasion can car in tw ways. First, as yu might expect, people free change their attitudes in response t strong and local arguments.
However, research has she that people may als be influenced by a speaker's physical attractiveness, by the aruba f fear and ther eating, by the reactions f ther's in the audience, and by ther superficial cues. Researchers have identified three main factors that contribute t the effect f a persuasive communication: the source, the message, and the audience. In ther wrd's, what matters in persuasion is wh says what t whm. Sometimes people change their attitudes nt in response t a persuasive communication but by convincing themselves, a press f self-persuasion. Having considered all f the are we can definitely state that persuasion is sme what related t manipulating people and, which basically means affecting the free f click f ther's. What is even was that sometimes the professional relationship between the psychologist and customer are getting mre personal, even sexual.
This nte examines "consensual" sexual relatinship's between nn-mental health physicians and patients. Mre specifically, it examines whether such relatinship's ever amount t medical malpractice. Generally, a nn-mental health physician would be liable under the rubric f medical malpractice nly if the sexual relationship was commenced under the guise f medical treatment. Recent cases, however, have expanded liability in certain circumstances when the physician-patient relationship has involved counseling matters.
Counseling matters describes talking t patients abut their feelings, r discussing personal problems nt necessarily related t their proposed treatment. Medical treatment supplemented by counseling purportedly requires greater scrutiny due t the higher levels f trust and confidence necessary t project the patients interests. These cases adpt the mre rights legal approach applied t mental health physicians. Mental health physicians (psychlgist's and psychiatrists) have routinely been held liable fr medical malpractice based n sexual relatinship's with their patients. This liability arises ut f mishandling the transference phenomenon. The transference phenomenon, a Freudian discovery, involves the creating f a father-sn, mother-daughter relationship between the date and patient, which is ultimately necessary t price psychological healing.
Patients wh experience such a phenomenon tend t be sexually vulnerable t their therapists. Sexual contact with a patient, therefore, may cause irreparable harm t the patients psyche. A gd psychiatrist / psychologist will avid acting n this vulnerability and apply techniques t lessen it. A bad psychiatrist/ psychologist will initiate a sexual relationship, r through "cuntertransference" project his r her unhealthy feelings nt a client. Transference issues arise, t sme degree, in all relatinship's when perceived authority figures exist. Psychlgist's, psychiatrists, counselors, physicians, lawyers, and the clergy all deal with transference issues.
Consequently, it is nt surprising that all these pressing view sex with a client in an unfavorable light. The main question addressed here is whether sexual relations between tw consensual adults in the physician-patient relationship constitutes medical malpractice. Such a relationship may be unethical. Such a relationship may als result in severe civil r administrative penalties. Such a relationship may even be criminal. However, this author asserts that in n circumstances des the behavior ever rise t medical malpractice.
It would be quite a stretch indeed t hld that a physician's sexual relationship with a patient was substantially related t the qualifications, functions, r ther duties logically associated with being a date. Nr would it be local t presume that such relations arse while in the site f the physician-patient relationship, r that such activities constituted rendition f any health care services. Sexual acts als d nt involve the requisite levels f skill and care promised t the patient. And the possible presence f the transference phenomenon, by itself, is simply nt enough t image liability fr medical malpractice nt the nn-mental health physician. Why debate whether a sexual relationship creates grund's fr medical malpractice? Medical malpractice is typically covered under professional-liability insurance policies.
Adverse medical malpractice judgments r settlements increase insurance cst's. Increased insurance cst's are spread t society as a we in greater health-care cst's. r in ther wrd's, society pays while the date and patient play. If the relationship is truly consensual, then bth parties must bear the brunt f their irresponsibility.
Sex, like crime, cme's with a cst and images societal burdens. The nature f the physician-patient relationship is complex. As a fiduciary relationship, it is grounded in mutual mast and confidence. The physician is required, in gd faith, t perform his r her duties at the level f knowledge, skill, and standards applicable t the medical profession as a we. The physician is represented t the public as possessing superior knowledge, being with f public mast, and bund t act in the best interests f patients. The patient, n the ther hand, enters the relationship at his r her mst vulnerable men.
The patients physical and mental well-being depends upn the physicians competence. Detailed physical examinations and with the patients personal revelations and insights free accompany mst curses f treatment. Patients vulnerability compounded with their bus dependence n the physician t cure their ills places the physician in a position f dominance. It is this position f dominance, r relative disparity f power in the relationship, which has led the American Medical Association (the AMA) t conclude that having sexual relations with a current patient is unethical.
The prohibition against sexual relatinship's with patients dates back ver ne thousand years t the Hippcratic ath. A 1992 survey f practicing physicians revealed that nine percent acknowledged sexual contact with ne r mre patients. And because f the strong and free complex eating (affecting, admiration, understanding, and empathy and ther's) even by the physician-patient relationship, it is nt uncommon r animal that sexual attraction between the tw parties develop. This sexual attraction, which by itself may nt be deleterious t the relationship, can under the right situation lead t sexual contact.
Sexual contact, r a sexual relationship, is viewed as gratifying the physicians needs at the patients expense. bjectivity f treatment is lst, r at least jeopardized, by placing the physician's fcu's elsewhere. Also all researchers agree that the consequences f a physician-patient relationship are universally negative r damaging t the patient. In the conclusion I would like t state my pint f view n the are question.
I am strongly against any relationship between the date and the patient, especially when it cme's t dealing with psychology, because it can nt nly cause physical suffering t the bth, but als mental. Reference: Michaelson, Konrad K. Ethics of relationship Bender Publishing: Colorado, 2000. Gottfredson, Jerome. Psychological Studies. Next House: Atlanta, 1988.
Birk, Alexander. Impacts of Others. Glasgow Typing International, Glasgow, UK, 1998. Blustein, Vladimir.
Role of a Mentor. Practical Psychology Books: Anderlecht, 2001. Frank, Jeremiah. Modern Psychology.
Michigan University Press, 1999. Wilson, Gary. Sex: Ethical Issues. GVA Editorials, Geneva. 2000.
Free research essays on topics related to: mental health, patient relationship, sexual attraction, social psychology, sexual relationship
Research essay sample on Patient Relationship Sexual Relationship
