Cited by 4Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingMedical and Health Sciences Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

From posts to protection: Ethical considerations regarding forensic psychiatrists and a duty to warn based on social media

Open access

Abstract

Increasing use of social media in forensic mental health evaluations will lead to new challenges that must be resolved by forensic practitioners and the legal system. One such dilemma is the discovery of information that would typically trigger a legal duty and professional ethics obligation for mental health professionals to breach doctor‐patient confidentiality to promote public safety and prevent harm to vulnerable third parties. Although the law and professional organizations offer clear guidance for practitioners in the treatment role, there is currently no clarity from the law or instruction from professional organizations on what mental health professionals should do if they discover such information during a confidential forensic evaluation. For example, a forensic evaluator may find evidence on social media of an evaluee’s threats to seriously harm others, abuse of children and the elderly, or severely impaired driving. There are no clear guidelines for how a forensic psychiatrist should respond in these complicated situations. We review the legal concepts and historical evolution of confidentiality, privilege, and mandated reporter duties that forensic practitioners should consider in these legally ambiguous situations. Finally, we discuss ethics frameworks practitioners can implement to determine their most ethical course of action when faced with such dilemmas.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bsl.2647

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. 10.1176/appi.focus.20190021 · DOI
  2. Appelbaum P. S., 1997, A theory of ethics for forensic psychiatry, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25, 233
  3. 10.1080/14999013.2021.1880504 · DOI
  4. Beauchamp T. L., 2013, Principles of biomedical ethics (seventh)
  5. 10.1046/j.1525‐1497.2000.04309.x · DOI
  6. Candilis P. J., 2001, Principles and narrative in forensic psychiatry: Toward a robust view of professional role, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 167
  7. Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2019, Mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect
  8. Cleveland v, 2022, Taft union high Sch. Dist., No. F080084 (cal. Ct, App. Mar., 25
  9. 10.29158/JAAPL.003940‐20 · DOI
  10. 10.1037/pro0000206 · DOI
  11. 10.29158/JAAPL.210152‐21 · DOI
  12. 10.2174/2210676608666180112141022 · DOI
  13. 10.1176/appi.focus.20180020 · DOI
  14. Fliszar G. M., 2000, Dangerousness and the duty to warn, Emerich v. Philadelphia center for human development, Inc. brings Tarasoff to Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh law review, 201
  15. 10.1176/appi.focus.17401 · DOI
  16. Griffith E. E. H., 1998, Ethics in forensic psychiatry: A cultural response to stone and Appelbaum, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 26, 171
  17. Gutheil T. G., 2010, Commentary: Tarasoff duties arising from a forensic independent medical examination, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38, 57
  18. 10.1176/appi.focus.17402 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/00938548211042057 · DOI
  20. 10.2139/ssrn.1470849 · DOI
  21. 10.29158/JAAPL.003911‐20 · DOI
  22. 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001297 · DOI
  23. Nguyen v. MIT. (2018). 96 N.E. 3d 128. Mass.. · DOI
  24. Norko M. A., 2005, Commentary: Compassion at the core of forensic ethics, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 386
  25. O’Shaughnessy R. J., 1999, Canadian landmark case, smith v. Jones, Supreme court of Canada: Confidentiality and privilege suffer another blow, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law Online, 27, 614
  26. 10.1037/pro0000061 · DOI
  27. 10.1370/afm.575 · DOI
  28. 10.2307/1340158 · DOI
  29. 10.3389/fpubh.2021.752004 · DOI
  30. Weinstock R., 2015, Dialectical principlism: An approach to finding the most ethical action, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 43, 10
  31. Weinstock R., 2014, No duty to warn in California: Now unambiguously solely a duty to protect, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42, 101
  32. Weinstock R., 2006, Back to the past in California: A temporary retreat to a tarasoff duty to warn, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34, 523
  33. Zenor J., 2021, If you see something, say something: Can artificial intelligence have a duty to report dangerous behavior in the home?, Denver Law Review, 98, 839

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
MacIntyre, M. R., Sones, A. C., Li, J., Darby, W. C., & Weinstock, R.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
MacIntyre, Michael R.
Venue
Behavioral Sciences & the Law
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-02-22
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
130-148
ISSN
  • 0735-3936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0798
OpenAlex
W4392108475
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavioral Sciences & the Law (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Social Sciences › Law › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
forensic psychiatry, social media, duty to warn, confidentiality, professional ethics, mandatory reporting, privilege, public safety, forensic psychiatric assessment, ethics framework, child abuse, elder abuse, impaired driving
MeSH terms
Psychiatrists, Aged, Child, Child Abuse, Confidentiality, Forensic Psychiatry, Humans, Duty to Warn, Social Media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From posts to protection: Ethical considerations regarding forensic psychiatrists and a duty to warn based on social media. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bsl.2647
The paper
MacIntyre, M. R., Sones, A. C., Li, J., Darby, W. C., & Weinstock, R. (2024). From posts to protection: Ethical considerations regarding forensic psychiatrists and a duty to warn based on social media. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2647