Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law ; 42(4): 459-68, 2014.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25492072

RESUMO

Journalists often turn to psychiatrists for analysis of medical, social, political, and cultural events that involve human behavior and illness. Once journalists seek their expertise, psychiatrists often rush to be helpful, which can lead to ineffective performance and to statements that may run afoul of principles of professional ethics. In this article, we discuss the bases on which the professionalism of psychiatrists may be impugned when they commit errors in their media presentations. Found within the Principles of Medical Ethics with Special Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, the Goldwater Rule prohibits certain behaviors when psychiatrists share professional opinions with the public. We first discuss the Goldwater Rule, highlighting the events that led to its development and the professional response to its enactment. We then present a method to guide psychiatrists in their interaction with the media that will help them avoid violating ethics principles or the law. The method encourages knowledge of a framework of ethics principles that in turn guide the psychiatrist's behavior and thinking as he contemplates accepting invitations to interact with the media. The ethics-based roles include the Teacher, the Storyteller, the Celebrity Commentator, the Hollywood Consultant, the Clinician, and the Advertiser.


Assuntos
Ética Médica , Meios de Comunicação de Massa/ética , Psiquiatria/ética , Responsabilidade Social , Confidencialidade/ética , Confidencialidade/legislação & jurisprudência , Difamação/legislação & jurisprudência , Prova Pericial/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Meios de Comunicação de Massa/legislação & jurisprudência , Obrigações Morais , Política , Profissionalismo , Psiquiatria/legislação & jurisprudência , Opinião Pública , Estados Unidos , Violência/ética , Violência/legislação & jurisprudência , Violência/psicologia
2.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law ; 40(3): 399-408, 2012.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22960923

RESUMO

A recent Florida law, Medical Privacy Concerning Firearms, potentially bars physicians from being able to ask patients about firearms ownership unless safety is an immediate concern. The ability of physicians to provide preventive medicine and perform risk assessments could be threatened. The ensuing debate has focused on a political and constitutional battleground between physicians and patients. In this article, we analyze the arguments from both perspectives and offer suggestions to physicians facing this unique clinical dilemma.


Assuntos
Armas de Fogo , Propriedade , Relações Médico-Paciente , Atenção Primária à Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Privacidade/legislação & jurisprudência , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Florida , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Relações Médico-Paciente/ética , Medição de Risco/ética , Medição de Risco/legislação & jurisprudência , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...