Case Study: Duty to Protect

   PSY-510 Contemporary and Holy Issues in Psychology Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect Directions: In a poverty of 50 tone, for each doubt, collectively vindication each of the doubts beneathneath touching Contingency 4: Investigation on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect. Use one to two knowing resources to livelihood your vindications. Use in-text citations, when misspend, according to APA formatting. 1. Why is this an holy scrape? Which APA Holy Principles succor form the truth of the scrape? 2. Who are the stakeholders and how allure they be forced by how Dr. Yeung resolves this scrape? 3. Does this top coalesce the standards set by the Tarasoff judgment’s “duty to protect” legislation (see Chapter 7)? How strength whether or not Dr. Yeung’s avow includes investigationers beneath such a legislation wave Dr. Yeung’s holy judgment making? How strength the truth that Dr. Yeung is a investigation psychologist outside inoculation or licensure in clinical usage wave the holy judgment? 4. In addressing this scrape, should Dr. Yeung regard how her judgment may interest the amount of her investigation (e.g., the confidentiality concerns of other participants)? 5. How are APA Holy Standards 2.01f, 3.04, 3.06, 4.01, 4.02, 4.05, and 8.01 apt to this contingency? Which other standards strength dedicate? 6. What are Dr. Yeung’s holy choices for resolving this scrape? Which choice best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and enforceable standards, juridical standards, and obligations to stakeholders? Can you test the holy scheme (discussed in Chapter 3) forcible your judgment? 7. What steps should Dr. Yeung receive to tool her judgment and mentor its issue? References: