Adjudication of AAPL Ethical Complaints

Abstract

An issue that was very controversial within AAPL for a long time was the question of adoption of a definition of forensic psychiatry. Prior to 1985 a frequently quoted definition ran as follows: “Forensic psychiatry is the application of psychiatry to legal issues for legal ends.”¹ Some members felt that such a definition left our profession open to misuse and to the temptation on the part of forensic psychiatrists to practice in accord with legal, not psychiatric, ethical canons. After a great deal of debate and consultation with a number of senior AAPL members, the following definition was submitted to the American Board of Forensic Psychiatry and subsequently adopted on May 20, 1985: “Forensic psychiatry is a subspecialty of psychiatry in which scientific and clinical expertise is applied to legal issues in legal contexts embracing civil, criminal, correctional or legislative matters; forensic psychiatry should be practiced in accordance with guidelines and ethical principles enunciated by the profession of psychiatry.” Linking the ethical prong to the functional prong in one definition was disturbing to some; but the authors of the definition felt fully vindicated when it was included in AAPL’s Ethical Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry,² adopted by the membership at the Semiannual Meeting in Chicago on May 10, 1987.³