Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on The 2002 AMA Code of Ethics Changes and their Australian Implications:. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 5 page paper examines the Code of Ethics changes made to the American Psychological Association in 2002 and what ramifications these changes have on the Australian Psychological Society. Furthermore, their implications on the ethical guidelines of the Australian Psychological Society are also examined. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_GSApaSoc.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
must utilize his/her thorough understanding of ethical codes that provide guidance on such matters. In 2002, the American Psychological Association revised its ethical code of conduct, and these revisions
have specific ramifications for the beginning psychologist in terms of providing guidance on ethical issues. Furthermore, these changes are representative of changes in American counseling dogma, but how these
changes affect other countries and their codes is of particular interest here. Among the most significant of changes to the 2002
version of the American Psychological Association Code of Ethics concerns the release of raw data, which now must be released to clients and their designees when a written release is
provided by the client (Smith, 2003). The purpose of this change was to "clarify the amount of discretion psychologists had in refraining from releasing test data under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which directs providers to release certain health information to clients upon request" (Smith, 2003). Clearly this change reveals trend toward allowing patients
more autonomy and increasing their rights in regards to making their own health-care based decisions (Smith, 2003). This revision is
important because it changes who has access to test information (Smith, 2003). Prior to these revisions, only those qualified to interpret the results had such access (Smith, 2003).
In this case, this forces the beginning psychologist to address important concerns. While these revisions are explicit in their detail and therefore require little interpretation on the part of
the beginning psychologist, they do impose a new type of concern - that being how those with access with use the information to which they are privy. In other
...