RESUMEN
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization held that the U.S. Constitution does not confer the right to an abortion, which set into motion an overhaul of reproductive health care services in certain states. Health care professionals are now operating within a rapidly changing landscape of clinical practice in which they may experience conflict between personal and professional morals (eg, bodily autonomy, patient advocacy), uncertainty regarding allowable practices, and fear of prosecution (eg, loss of medical license) related to reproductive health care services. The ethical dilemmas stemming from Dobbs create a context for exposure to potentially morally injurious events, moral distress, and moral injury (ie, functional impairment stemming from exposure to moral violations) among health care professionals. Considerations related to clinical intervention and approaches to policy are reviewed. Early identification of health care professionals' potentially morally injurious event exposure related to restricted reproductive services is critical for preventing and intervening on moral injury, with implications for improving functioning and retention within the medical field.
Asunto(s)
Aborto Inducido , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Principios Morales , Políticas , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/etiología , Salud de la MujerRESUMEN
A comment on the recent American Psychologist article, "In the Immediate Wake of Hoffman's Independent Review: Psychologist and General Public Perceptions" (Thornewill et al., 2020) raised concerns regarding some interpretations of the data (Jackson, 2021). In this reply, we emphasize that the primary aim of the study was to present initial data regarding a sensitive and hotly debated issue to promote more empirically based discussion and lay the groundwork for future research in this domain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Asunto(s)
Estados UnidosRESUMEN
In 2015, the American Psychological Association (APA) commissioned an independent review (IR) to examine APA's potential involvement with "enhanced interrogation" procedures following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The IR concluded that certain APA officials acted together with the Department of Defense to "align APA and curry favor with" the Department of Defense to allow the involvement of psychologists in such enhanced interrogations (Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 9). Discussion following the IR's release underscored differences in the views of psychologists regarding the IR's conclusions. Despite extensive discussion, there is only anecdotal evidence regarding the views of psychologists on many of the questions investigated in the IR. This study examined the opinions of psychologists and the public shortly after the IR's release regarding the roles of psychologists in national security interrogations and other non-treatment-focused contexts. This survey of psychologists (N = 1,146) engaged in treatment-focused and non-treatment-focused activities, and of the general public (N = 522), sheds light on the broader perceptions of the IR's conclusions, and is relevant in considering future directions for the profession. Results suggest that the public is more accepting of psychologists' involvement in national security settings, including involvement in many of the activities highlighted as problematic in the IR, than are psychologists. The perceptions of treatment-focused and non-treatment-focused psychologists regarding the appropriate roles of psychologists in national security settings did not differ significantly. These empirical data should help inform the ongoing discussion in this area. None of the authors is associated with an unequivocal position on the IR or the issues addressed as part of it. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Asunto(s)
Psicología Militar/ética , Medidas de Seguridad/ética , Sociedades Científicas/ética , Tortura/ética , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Psicología/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
Pursuant to recent United States Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), individuals convicted of crimes committed when they were younger than 18 and for which they received mandatory life sentences are entitled to new sentencing hearings. This study examined public perceptions of such individuals (life-sentenced juveniles, or LSJs). Study participants were 663 adults (52.3% male) ages 22-71 years (M = 36.00, SD = 11.46) recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Each participant received one of a possible four vignettes about a man who was incarcerated for a crime that occurred when he was 17 years old and subsequently sentenced to mandatory life in prison following conviction. Two variables (risk of harming others if released to the community, and circumstances of the crime) were manipulated in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design. Each participant read one vignette and then answered questions relating to appropriateness for release from prison. Results indicate that risk, but not circumstances of the crime, strongly influenced participants' views regarding resentencing. When the individual in the vignette was labeled as high risk, participants described him as less appropriate for release, more deserving of punishment, needing more rehabilitation, and more appropriate for specific and general deterrence. The circumstances of the crime had no effect on participants' responses. This may be important for various reasons, as applicable law does not explicitly identify risk as a consideration in juvenile resentencing. The nonetheless noteworthy empirical influence of risk on perceptions regarding LSJs is discussed in their implications for research, policy, and practice.
Asunto(s)
Crimen/psicología , Criminales/psicología , Delincuencia Juvenil/psicología , Castigo/psicología , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Percepción Social , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Alabama , Análisis de Varianza , Femenino , Humanos , Louisiana , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Prisioneros , Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Decisiones de la Corte Suprema , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Society and the criminal justice system prioritize the reduction of reoffending risk as part of any criminal justice intervention. The Sequential Intercept Model identifies five points of interception at which justice-involved individuals can be diverted into a more rehabilitative alternative: (1) law enforcement/emergency services; (2) booking/initial court hearings; (3) jails/courts; (4) re-entry; and (5) community corrections/community support. The present article focuses on diversion as part of Intercept 5 - re-entry planning and specialized services in the community. We describe the challenges associated with diversion at this stage, and review the relevant research. Next, we describe a "criminogenic cognitive behavioral therapy" project that has been developed and implemented as part of a federal re-entry court. Finally, we discuss the implications of the challenges of intervention at this stage, and the recently developed "Re-entry Project," for research, policy, and practice.