Defending animal research
I'm writing about the July/August Questionnaire, "Defending Animal Research." As a doctoral student in clinical psychology and a lover of animals, I understand both sides of the animal research debate.
Personally, I could never do the life-saving research done on animals because of my values regarding animal life. However, I would be remiss to say I haven't benefited from such research and the dedication and conviction of Dr. Jentsch and other animal researchers despite life-threatening harassment. I appreciate Dr. Jentsch's efforts to educate others about animal research in an appealing way. Graphic images and stories of surgical procedures on adorable, furry creatures evoke strong, negative emotions. I think educating non-scientists about the ethical limitations and requirements of animal research would contribute greatly to acceptance of animal research. I am still uncomfortable with causing pain or death to another living creature, but I feel reassured there are steps to minimize pain and suffering and ensure that animal research is conducted only when it is a necessity.
Victoria L. Wu, MS
Clinical psychology PhD student
Institute for International Internet Interventions for Health, Palo Alto University
Regarding mandated reporting
In his article in the September Monitor, "Keeping a clinical focus," Dr. Stephen Behnke suggests that a mandated reporter (MR) involve the client in a disclosure or at least inform the client that a disclosure must be made. He states that this might help protect the psychologist against a claim that s/he has breached confidentiality. If the client is a child and the psychologist must report that there is a reasonable suspicion that the parent is physically and/or sexually abusing the child, the psychologist may become at risk for retaliation.
Although there are laws meant to protect MRs, they are not universal. Some states protect the identity of the MR, while others do not. Some states protect MRs from civil and criminal liability, while others do not. The states that offer such immunity only grant it to MRs who report "in good faith." Further, codified laws may protect MRs who are employees, but independent MRs (clinicians in private practice) may lack the same legal protection unless their state protects MRs for good faith reports.
However, malicious prosecutors can find ways around such statutes by filing perjury, witness-tampering or obstruction charges. Filing criminal charges, ethics complaints and civil lawsuits may bypass MR protections. Firing a psychologist or releasing the MR's name to the press or others can also be forms of retaliation.
So, it would be prudent to consider the risks associated with being a MR. Since 18 states have already adopted universal mandatory reporting laws, this discussion is timely.
Franne Sippel, EdD
Gorton, South Dakota
