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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 3-7 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Academic Psychiatry |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs |
|
| State | Published - Jan 2008 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Comment/debate
}
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
C2 - 18270274
AN - SCOPUS:41649091437
VL - 32
SP - 3
EP - 7
JO - Academic Psychiatry
JF - Academic Psychiatry
SN - 1042-9670
IS - 1
ER -