‘QUIS CUSTODIET?’: WHO HAS ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONFIDENTIALITY IN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES?

Confidentiality is a complex and engaging subject. One of the questions I would ask the reader to consider is whether ‘absolute’ confidentiality can truly exist within the analytic relationship and whether it is worth asking the same question in relation to psychotherapy as it is practised within the NHS. Is the position of absolute confidence a noble aspiration or could it be regarded as a rather inflexible stance whose advocates occupy an arrogant and even omnipotent position? This last question deliberately invokes a false dichotomy and I would argue that the clinical reality of working with patients continually dispels the myth that ‘absolute’ confidentiality can exist within the analytic relationship. If we can accept this position, then the stage is set for a potentially more fruitful, if complex, debate about where the line of disclosure lies for individual cases. It would seem timely, in view of the recent publication of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' report Good Psychiatric Practice: Confidentiality & Information Sharing (2006 Royal College of Psychiatrists. 2006. Good Psychiatric Practice: Confidentiality & Information Sharing, London: Royal College of Psychiatrists. Council Report CR133 [Google Scholar]), to reflect upon how the ‘contract’ of confidentiality is drawn up in the apparently dyadic relationship of analytic therapy as practised in the private sector and to consider the particular conflicts and threats to patient confidence posed by the multidisciplinary and highly transparent ways of working that have evolved within modern NHS mental health services.     

SHOULD KANTIANS BE CONSEQUENTIALISTS?

Parfit argues that a form of rule consequentialism can be derived from the most plausible formulation of the fundamental principle of Kantian ethics. And so he concludes that Kantians should be consequentialists. I argue that we have good reason to reject two of the auxiliary premises that figure in Parfit's derivation of rule consequentialism from Kantianism. ¹     

SHOULD SIGNIFICANCE TESTS BE BANNED?

Abstract— Significance testing of null hypotheses is the standard epistemologicat method for advancing scientific knowledge in psychology, even though a has drawbacks and it leads to common inferential mistakes These mistakes include accepting the null hypothesis when it fails to be rejected, automatically interpreting rejected null hypotheses as theoretically meaningful, and failing to consider the likelihood of Type II errors Although these mistakes have been discussed repeatedly for decades, there is no evidence that the academic discussion has had an impact A group of methodologists is proposing a new approach simply ban significance tests in psychology journals The impact of a similar ban in public-health and epidemiology journals is reported     

SHOULD MARITAL RELATIONS BE NON‐HIERARCHICAL?

The paper explores an egalitarian norm widely accepted today, which I call the Marital Non‐Hierarchy Standard. According to this standard, marital relationships should be non‐hierarchical; neither partner may be more dominant than the other. The Marital Non‐Hierarchy Standard is exceptional: in almost all associations, including many financial, professional, educational and recreational ones, in almost all spheres of life, some hierarchies, within certain limits, are widely believed to be morally legitimate. I argue that in marital relations, too, some hierarchies should be accepted as morally legitimate. It might be argued that marital relations should be loving, and love requires that lovers will have the same degree of power. However, contemporary analyses of love show that love is consistent with (some) hierarchies. It might also be argued that justice requires that lovers will have equal power. However, theories of distributive justice such as Rawls's, Sen's, Dworkin's, and almost all others allow some marital hierarchies. Thus, both the love requirement and the justice requirement allow some hierarchical marital relationships and conflict with the Marital Non‐Hierarchy Standard. Until other justifications for this standard are presented, it is unclear why it should be endorsed.     

TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGY: WHO COULD ASK FOR ANYTHING MORE?

Abstract. Teleological thinking permeates biology and is useful in pondering unanswered biological questions. Such thinking differs from the usual sense of teleology in that “purpose” in biology carries no imputation of causation. A few examples are given. The teleological system of biology is every bit as elegant a construct of the human mind as any other teleological system and in no way precludes spirituality. I argue that it provides a firmer foundation for moral guidance than supernatural systems.     

IS SOCIAL VALIDITY WHAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN? ARGUMENT FOR A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH

It is argued that neither the term social nor the term validity is best to identify the processes used or the results obtained in questioning consumers about the goals set, procedures employed, or outcomes achieved in habilitative programming. The term consumer satisfaction acknowledges the fact that it is essentially a collection of consumer opinions. The underlying intent of the process might be called habilitative validation, a name that seems to better guide our validation efforts. More important, in carefully considering consumer satisfaction assessment, it becomes clear that not only does consumer satisfaction itself need to be validated, but also that more objective methods can be used for assessing habilitative validity. However, legitimate uses still remain for consumer satisfaction measurement, as long as we do not mistake it for strong evidence of the habilitative validity of our goals, procedures, or outcomes.     

AN URGENT SOCIAL PROBLEM? JEWISH JUVENILE DELINQUENTS IN TURN-OF-TWENTIETH-CENTURY LONDON

This article examines the phenomenon of Jewish juvenile delinquency in turn-of-the-century London and the developments leading up to the Jewish community's decision to establish its own Industrial Schools. The reactions of English society, as well as parts of the Anglo-Jewish community, to the problem of Jewish juvenile delinquency were out of proportion. The public attention was not necessarily linked to the numbers prosecuted and cannot be understood from the statistical data alone. The article proposes two explanations for the view of Jewish juvenile delinquency as an urgent, serious social problem at the start of the twentieth century. One relates to the refusal of the Anglo-Jewish community to establish its own institutions to take in the delinquent children. The second relates to the public atmosphere of suspicion and fear of the poor, of adolescents and of foreigners (all of which defined these Jewish boys) prevalent in English society at that time.     

IF OUR GENES ARE FOR US,WHO CAN BE AGAINST US? THOUGHTS OF A PRAGMATIST ON SCIENCE AND MORALITY

Abstract. The philosopher Michael Ruse accounts for the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, and thus the origin of distinctively moral obligations like that of altruism, in genetic terms. This is part of an attempt to develop a philosophy that takes Darwin seriously by substituting respectable scientific entities, specifically those of evolutionary biology, for suspect theological or philosophical ones, like God or the transcendental ego, as a basis for addressing philosophical questions. Pragmatists take Darwin seriously, but in a very different way from that proposed by Ruse. Darwin introduced a “logic” into the study of living things—including human beings, the human mind, and culture— that leads philosophers to ask new and different questions about morality rather than trying to supply new answers to the same old questions. This essay contrasts these two different ways of taking Darwin seriously for purposes of philosophy and claims certain advantages for the pragmatist way over Ruse's.     

DO RESEARCH REPORTS IN MAINSTREAM FEMINIST PSYCHOLOGY JOURNALS REFLECT FEMINIST VALUES?

Core values in feminist approaches to psychological research include attention to the relationship between scientists and citizens. But traditional methodological norms dictate that investigators restrict citizens' participation in research and prescribe an impersonal, decontextualized writing style in journal reports. Content analysis of 228 research articles in two journals associated with feminist psychology—the Psychology of Women Quarterly and Sex Roles, spanning the journals'first decade—showed that authors typically provided minimal or no information about such relationship dimensions as level of participation, informed consent, and feedback. The depersonalized writing style generally employed gives the impression that some feminist psychologists have adopted androcentric standards for the research relationship. Developing appropriate models for both research methods and report writing is essential for feminist researchers to resolve the apparent contradiction between ideals and behavior. But certain institutional obstacles need to be overcome for the resolution to occur.