Confidentiality vs. mandated reporting of child abuse: a social work research dilemma

Applied behavioral science review Pub Date : 1997-01-01 Epub Date: 2004-10-22 DOI:10.1016/S1068-8595(97)80009-8
Harvey A. Farberman, Stephen J. Finch, Paula K. Bergman
{"title":"Confidentiality vs. mandated reporting of child abuse: a social work research dilemma","authors":"Harvey A. Farberman,&nbsp;Stephen J. Finch,&nbsp;Paula K. Bergman","doi":"10.1016/S1068-8595(97)80009-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The tension between protecting the privacy rights of a respondent and the legally mandated obligation to report suspicion of child abuse confronts the researcher with a dilemma: to breach confidentiality is unethical; to not report is illegal. Example cases are presented in which the reporting of suspected child abuse breaches respondent confidentiality. The argument is advanced that the decision to breach confidentiality may well lead to: self-censorship by researchers, lack of candor by respondents, suppressed survey response rates, interviewer deception, oppression of disempowered groups, and impairment of the self-correcting aspects of disciplined inquiry.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":84178,"journal":{"name":"Applied behavioral science review","volume":"5 1","pages":"Pages 101-111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1068-8595(97)80009-8","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied behavioral science review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1068859597800098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2004/10/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The tension between protecting the privacy rights of a respondent and the legally mandated obligation to report suspicion of child abuse confronts the researcher with a dilemma: to breach confidentiality is unethical; to not report is illegal. Example cases are presented in which the reporting of suspected child abuse breaches respondent confidentiality. The argument is advanced that the decision to breach confidentiality may well lead to: self-censorship by researchers, lack of candor by respondents, suppressed survey response rates, interviewer deception, oppression of disempowered groups, and impairment of the self-correcting aspects of disciplined inquiry.

保密与强制报告虐待儿童:一个社会工作研究的困境
保护被访者的隐私权与法律规定的报告虐待儿童嫌疑的义务之间的紧张关系使研究人员陷入两难境地:违反保密是不道德的;不报告是违法的。举例说明,举报涉嫌虐待儿童的行为违反了答辩人的保密义务。提出的论点是,违反保密的决定很可能导致:研究人员的自我审查,受访者缺乏坦诚,调查回复率受到抑制,采访者欺骗,被剥夺权利的群体受到压迫,以及纪律调查的自我纠正方面受到损害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书