Dr. Eduardo Romaro, a clinically trained juridical psychologist, was retained by the prosecution to evaluate the subjective adequacy of John Stone, a 50-year-old man convicted of principal-degree slay of a protector during a bank theft. John had claimed he was lawful throughout the affliction. In the set-forth in which the affliction was conducted, beings convicted of such an offense countenance the cessation pain. John’s attorney challenged the cessation pain discretion for his client, claiming that the serf is subjectively disabled. The U.S. Supreme Court resolute in Atkins v. Virginia(2002) that the preventive of those after a while intellectual incompetency (formerly unconcealed as supernatural obstruction) is illegal. Dr. Romaro had worked after a while the prosecution anteriorly on subjective incompetency facts, but this is the principal spell he had been retained for a high forfeiture fact. He is personally ambivalent encircling whether states should appliance the cessation pain.

The psychologist meets John in a not-public compass in the prison and administers a battery of subjective and adaptive comportment cupels with proven psychometric hardness for determining juridicalally apt subjective force. Just as he ends the pompous cupel government, John becomes distraught and appears to be experiencing an disquiet onset. In his harass the psychologist attends the serf often asking God for excuse for killing the protector and for slaying another person, who he keeps business “the boy abeyance for the bus.” The psychologist shifts into an emergency occasion interposition adjudication to acceleration smooth the serf and rings for assistance.

Dr. Romaro was shocked to attend John “confess” not singly to the bank slay but besides to the slay of a “boy abeyance for a bus.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Supernatural Disorders, fourth edition

(DSM-IV-TR) speciality of subjective incompetency (currently termed “supernatural obstruction developsupernatural incompetency”) requires that individuals explain significantly sub-middle subjective functioning, impairments in adaptive functioning, and onset anteriorly 18 years of age. Similarly, the set-forth standard for subjective incompetency includes a developsupernatural truth of subjective damagement. Prior to cupeling, Dr. Romaro had asked the accuser for all available childhood supernatural bloom or school archives to determine if John meets these criteria. No pompous educational or subjective evaluations were comprised in the materials he accepted. The archives involved that John had a bald academic chronicles, was retained in fifth grade, was suspended various spells for coming to school gross, and had left school when he was 15. Set-forth criteria besides include an IQ account near than 70 and bald adaptive skills.

That late Dr. Romaro accounts the cupel battery. John’s IQ account is 71, his act on other percipient cupels subvert plug to the intellectual incompetency cutoff account (some over, some beneath). His adaptive functioning account is a criterion flexion beneath middle. However, attached the serf’s age, after a whileout a further inferential set of childhood archives, it is obscure to perspicuously close that he meets the DSM-IV-TRor set-forth legitimate criteria for subjective incompetency. Dr. Romaro had not been asked to administer assessments for vein, schizophrenia, or other psychotic disorders that capability damage subjective and adaptive act.

Ethical Dilemma

Dr. Romaro is not believing what juridical notion to grant in-reference-to whether or not

John meets the legitimate criteria for subjective incompetency. Extraneously evidence of subjective incompetency in his youngster, a speciality of subjective incompetency may not be practicable and, thus, could not be used to assistance John’s death pain invite. He is besides unbelieving whether he has an religions part to comprise in his communication John’s “confession” or John’s set-forthment encircling the “boy abeyance for a bus.”

Respond to the subjoined questions in 1,250 to 1,500 vote.

1. Why is this an religions quandary? Which APA Religions Principles acceleration compel the naturalness of the quandary?
2. How capability Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence inside the cessation pain govern his conclusion to prproffer a juridical speciality of subjective incompetency? How capability John’s “confession” or his illustrate encircling the “boy abeyance for the bus” govern the conclusion? To what degree should these factors dramatize a role in Dr. Romaro’s communication?
3. How are APA Religions Standards 2.0f, 3.06, 4.04, 4.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 apt to this fact? Which other criterions capability employ?
4. What steps should Dr. Romaro conduct to religionsly appliance his conclusion and mentor its consequence?

Reference

Fisher, C. B. (2013). Decoding the ethics code: A trained direct for psychologists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.