Griffith E E
Division of Law and Psychiatry, Connecticut Mental Health Center, New Haven, USA.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1998;26(2):171-84.
Dr. Alan Stone has argued that forensic psychiatrists lack clear guidelines about what is proper and ethical with respect to their professional activity and consequently, that they ought to stay out of the courtroom. Dr. Paul Appelbaum and others have responded to Stone's critique with proposals that provide a countervailing framework of ethical guidance for forensic psychiatrists. It is this author's contention that both sides in the debate have ignored the issues that are important to forensic psychiatrists who belong to culturally nondominant groups in the United States. As a result, African-American forensic psychiatrists are likely to be troubled by an ethics framework that ignores their special struggles linked to the matter of race. By gutting the debate of any reference to a cultural context, the participants have enunciated a culture-free theory of ethics that is an ineffective tool for the black professional. The author argues for a reworking of the theoretical reasoning behind the debate that would ultimately render the debate more relevant to the professional life of African-American forensic psychiatrists and those from other nondominant groups.
艾伦·斯通博士认为，法医精神病学家对于其专业活动中何为恰当及合乎道德的行为缺乏明确的指导方针，因此，他们应该远离法庭。保罗·阿佩尔鲍姆博士及其他人针对斯通的批评提出了一些建议，为法医精神病学家提供了一个与之抗衡的道德指导框架。本文作者认为，辩论双方都忽略了对在美国属于文化上非主导群体的法医精神病学家来说至关重要的问题。因此，非裔美国法医精神病学家可能会因一个忽视他们与种族问题相关的特殊斗争的道德框架而感到困扰。通过在辩论中剔除任何与文化背景相关的内容，参与者们阐述了一种无文化的道德理论，这对黑人专业人士来说是一个无效的工具。作者主张重新审视辩论背后的理论推理，这最终会使辩论与非裔美国法医精神病学家及其他非主导群体的职业生涯更相关。
