Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2020 Jun;48(2):176-180. doi: 10.29158/JAAPL.200014-20. Epub 2020 May 11.
In this issue of The Journal, MacIntyre and Appel have reviewed state laws and medical boards' policies to ascertain which states require reporting of sexually exploitive psychiatrists, specifically when the patient reveals the exploitation during treatment. They highlight the competing ethics duties faced by physicians who are in a position to report such conduct and provide guidance for future development of reporting laws to help balance the conflicting ethics principles at stake. In this commentary, I discuss the pros and cons of mandatory reporting laws and underscore the importance of physicians' ethics duty to report the sexual misconduct of other physicians even in the absence of a legal mandate. In light of recent high-profile cases that demonstrate a failure of medicine to self-regulate, I make the case for a cultural shift in our profession so that the subject of reporting physician sexual misconduct is viewed not from the lens of a duty to report, but that of a duty to protect.
本期《杂志》中，MacIntyre 和 Appel 审查了州法律和医疗委员会的政策，以确定哪些州要求报告有性剥削行为的精神科医生，特别是当患者在治疗期间透露这种剥削行为时。他们强调了处于报告这种行为位置的医生所面临的相互竞争的道德义务，并为未来报告法律的发展提供了指导，以帮助平衡所涉相互冲突的道德原则。在这篇评论中，我讨论了强制性报告法律的利弊，并强调了医生即使在没有法律要求的情况下报告其他医生性行为不端的道德义务的重要性。鉴于最近一些备受瞩目的案例表明医学未能自我监管，我呼吁我们的专业人员转变文化，以便将报告医生性行为不端的问题不是从报告义务的角度来看待，而是从保护义务的角度来看待。
