MikeLigalig.com

By: A. Lorenzo Lucino Jr, M.D-Ph.Dc





The codes of ethics fulfills the three major objectives of educating professionals about sound ethical conduct, to provide a mechanism for professional accountability and to be a catalyst for improving practice. The code of ethics are not only a guidance for businesses and professional counselors in the work setting, but is also a depository, in a sense, for social issues. The code of ethics also provides a basis for businesses to delineate proper procedures to determine if one violated an ethical code, and if one did violate an ethical code, what can be done to correct the situation. 


   The American Medical Association Ethics Code is composed of the preamble, the five general principles and ethical standards. The five general principles, which are considered the pillars and the foundations of the AMA Ethics Code are Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, Fidelity and Responsibility, Integrity, Justice an Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity (Corey et al, 2011).


    The principle of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence states that physicians must strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm. It is the responsibility of psychiatrists to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons, and the welfare of animal subjects of research. The Principle of Fidelity and Responsibility states that psychiatrists must establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work. This principle stresses that professionals must uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior. The Principle of Integrity stresses that psychologists and counselors seek to promote accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in the science, teaching, and practice of psychological activities. This principle stresses that as professionals, physicians evade in stealing , cheating or engaging in fraudulent activity, subterfuge or intentional misrepresentation of fact.


      The principle of Justice stresses that physicians must recognize that fairness and justice entitle all persons access to and benefit from the contributions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures, and services being conducted by psychologists. With this there is emphasis in exercising reasonable judgment and to take precautionary measures to ensure that potential bias and to evade in unjust practices. The principle of Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity espouses on the respect for the dignity and worth of all people, and rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality and self-determination. These special safeguards are necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making (American Medical Association, 2011).


   The AMA Ethics Code fulfills the objectives of education, mechanism for accountability and catalyst for improvement; and as such, are also influenced by legislation. If one refers to the AMA Code of Ethics, it addresses the situation where the conflicts between ethics and law, regulatons, or governing legal authority can impede a health professional’s work(Corey et al, 2011). In such a case, if the psychologist’s ethical responsibilities conflicts with law, regulation, legislation or other extra-governing legal authority, then it is the responsibility of the psychologist to clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the ethics code, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with AMA Ethics Code (Fisher, 2009).    


   In my personal opinion, I believe that legislation and ethical codes can affect my future professional practice by dictating what I can do and what I cannot do for my patients and their counseling needs. It provides and sets boundaries that have to be set in place to protect our professional rights and also provides a defense purpose for the clients. Legislation concerning psychiatrists and patients of psychiatrists dictates what practices are deemed ‘unethical’ and ‘ethical’. An example of this would be seen in the Jackson vs. Indiana, where Theon Jackson, a deaf mute who could not read or write or communicate in any form was judged incompetent to stand trial and the court committed Jackson for an indefinite period (Jackson vs. Indiana). The said commitment was ended when he was deemed competent to stand trial. When Jackson’s request for a new trial was denied, he took the case to the Supreme Court, which reversed the original verdict and decided that courts cannot constitutionally place the petitioner in indefinite commitment based solely on the fact he is cited as being incompetent.


   As future practicing professionals, we have to be considerate of our patient’s religious, cultural as well as linguistic preferences and background. As health professionals with the goal of treating underlying cognitive and behavioral abnormality, we should not bring our own personal belief systems and impose them on them. We see what can happen when professional settings and educational centers impose their belief systems on people and it results in Landmark Cases that affects the established ethical conduct. The 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education had ruled that imposing religious education on minorities is unethical and should be revoked (Niose, 2011). This case led to the Engel v. Vitale case, which resulted in the banning of official school prayer and then the 1963 landmark case of Abington School District v. Schempp, which resulted in the ending of school-sponsored Bible study and numerous others. We notice that in this case, as medical care providers, we have to be considerate of our patient’s belief systems and in trying to implement things for them.
   



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=44834.0