The role of academic psychiatry faculty in the treatment and subsequent evaluation and promotion of medical students

An ethical conundrum

Michael G. Kavan, Paula Jo Malin, Daniel R. Wilson

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This article explores ethical and practical issues associated with the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) provision that states health professionals who provide psychiatric/psychological care to medical students must have no involvement in the academic evaluation or promotion of students receiving those services. Method: The authors address the pros and cons of this provision as they relate to the overall well-being of the student. Results: Arguments in support of this provision include students' desire for confidentiality, avoidance of dual-relationships, and fear of documentation in the academic record. Arguments against this provision include the elimination of student autonomy to select a psychiatrist, the suitability and accessibility of academic psychiatrists to treat students, and the delimiting nature of this standard. Conclusion: In general, the LCME provision eliminates potential barriers to the mental health treatment of medical students. However, research and debate on its impact and appropriateness on a case-by-case basis should continue.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3-7
Number of pages5
JournalAcademic Psychiatry
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2008

Fingerprint

Medical Students
psychiatry
Psychiatry
medical student
promotion
Students
evaluation
psychiatrist
Medical Education
student
Therapeutics
psychological care
Confidentiality
Ethics
Documentation
health professionals
Fear
documentation
education
Mental Health

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Education

Cite this

The role of academic psychiatry faculty in the treatment and subsequent evaluation and promotion of medical students : An ethical conundrum. / Kavan, Michael G.; Malin, Paula Jo; Wilson, Daniel R.

In: Academic Psychiatry, Vol. 32, No. 1, 01.2008, p. 3-7.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

@article{e30dd5b4433b4bb0812e8cd0a9955ba1,
title = "The role of academic psychiatry faculty in the treatment and subsequent evaluation and promotion of medical students: An ethical conundrum",
abstract = "Objectives: This article explores ethical and practical issues associated with the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) provision that states health professionals who provide psychiatric/psychological care to medical students must have no involvement in the academic evaluation or promotion of students receiving those services. Method: The authors address the pros and cons of this provision as they relate to the overall well-being of the student. Results: Arguments in support of this provision include students' desire for confidentiality, avoidance of dual-relationships, and fear of documentation in the academic record. Arguments against this provision include the elimination of student autonomy to select a psychiatrist, the suitability and accessibility of academic psychiatrists to treat students, and the delimiting nature of this standard. Conclusion: In general, the LCME provision eliminates potential barriers to the mental health treatment of medical students. However, research and debate on its impact and appropriateness on a case-by-case basis should continue.",
author = "Kavan, {Michael G.} and Malin, {Paula Jo} and Wilson, {Daniel R.}",
year = "2008",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1176/appi.ap.32.1.3",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "3--7",
journal = "Academic Psychiatry",
issn = "1042-9670",
publisher = "American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The role of academic psychiatry faculty in the treatment and subsequent evaluation and promotion of medical students

T2 - An ethical conundrum

AU - Kavan, Michael G.

AU - Malin, Paula Jo

AU - Wilson, Daniel R.

PY - 2008/1

Y1 - 2008/1

N2 - Objectives: This article explores ethical and practical issues associated with the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) provision that states health professionals who provide psychiatric/psychological care to medical students must have no involvement in the academic evaluation or promotion of students receiving those services. Method: The authors address the pros and cons of this provision as they relate to the overall well-being of the student. Results: Arguments in support of this provision include students' desire for confidentiality, avoidance of dual-relationships, and fear of documentation in the academic record. Arguments against this provision include the elimination of student autonomy to select a psychiatrist, the suitability and accessibility of academic psychiatrists to treat students, and the delimiting nature of this standard. Conclusion: In general, the LCME provision eliminates potential barriers to the mental health treatment of medical students. However, research and debate on its impact and appropriateness on a case-by-case basis should continue.

AB - Objectives: This article explores ethical and practical issues associated with the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) provision that states health professionals who provide psychiatric/psychological care to medical students must have no involvement in the academic evaluation or promotion of students receiving those services. Method: The authors address the pros and cons of this provision as they relate to the overall well-being of the student. Results: Arguments in support of this provision include students' desire for confidentiality, avoidance of dual-relationships, and fear of documentation in the academic record. Arguments against this provision include the elimination of student autonomy to select a psychiatrist, the suitability and accessibility of academic psychiatrists to treat students, and the delimiting nature of this standard. Conclusion: In general, the LCME provision eliminates potential barriers to the mental health treatment of medical students. However, research and debate on its impact and appropriateness on a case-by-case basis should continue.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=41649091437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=41649091437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1176/appi.ap.32.1.3

DO - 10.1176/appi.ap.32.1.3

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 32

SP - 3

EP - 7

JO - Academic Psychiatry

JF - Academic Psychiatry

SN - 1042-9670

IS - 1

ER -