Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Professional Ethics and Boundaries

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Tasman’s Psychiatry

  • 102 Accesses

Abstract

Psychiatry is a specialized medical profession, encompassing several roles, all of which require close attention to ethics, a branch of philosophy dealing with the study and linguistic expression of moral principles and actions. When applied to medicine, medical ethics becomes an essential tool to explore and conduct medical practice and research in a morally correct manner. This becomes all the more pertinent for psychiatry, because psychiatric interventions and activities are always value laden, performed under implicit sociocultural constraints. The principles of respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice are considered essential to guiding morality of actions in clinical and research situations, including clinical care, diagnosis, conflicts of interest, informed consent, and personal relationships. At the heart of medical ethics dealing with a patient is the issue of a professional or therapeutic boundary, or simply boundary, which broadly refers to the “edge” or limit of appropriate behavior in clinical and research contexts. While harmful boundary violations such as sexual relationships with a patient have been recognized and denounced since Hippocratic times, more subtly nuanced boundary crossings such as accepting a nonexpensive casual gift from a patient in therapy or accepting an invitation for attending a common cultural also received attention in the past two decades, not only because some of these boundary crossings may follow a slippery slope toward typical boundary violations, but also because they are influenced by context and cultural background. Technological advances and applications in modern digital-age psychiatry have given rise to newer ethical challenges in the practice of our discipline, including boundary issues. These issues also impact the ethics of psychiatric research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2015). APA commentary on ethics in practice. American Psychiatric Association. Available from: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/ethics. Last accessed 23 Oct 2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Arras, J. D. (1991). Getting down to cases: The revival of casuistry in bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 16, 29–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1979). Principles of biomedical ethics (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, S., Chodoff, P., & Green, S. A. (Eds.). (1999). Psychiatric ethics. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burr, C., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020). Digital psychiatry: Risks and opportunities for public health and wellbeing. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 1(1), 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, R., & Slote, M. (1997). Virtue ethics (Oxford readings in philosophy). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwall, S. L. (Ed.). (2002). Deontology. Willey-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • FitzGerald, C., & Hurst, S. (2017). Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, S. H., & Martinez, R. P. (2019). Boundaries, professionalism, and malpractice in psychiatry. Focus, 17(4), 365–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabbard, G. O. (2019). Digital professionalism. Academic Psychiatry, 43(3), 259–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabbard, G. O., Crisp-Han, H., & Hobday, G. S. (2015). Professional boundaries in psychiatric practice. In J. G. Sadler, K. W. M. Fulford, & C. W. van Staden (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psychiatric ethics. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice. Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, L. L. (2003). The gray areas of boundary crossings and violations. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 57, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gracia, D. (1991). Procedimientos de Decisión en Ética Clínica (Decision procedures in clinical ethics). Eudema.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenhout, R. E. (2004). Connected lives human nature and an ethics of care. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (1993). The concept of boundaries in clinical practice: Theoretical and risk-management dimensions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 188–196.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (1998). Misuses and misunderstandings of boundary theory in clinical and regulatory settings. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 155(3), 409–414.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hagiwara, N., Kron, F. W., Scerbo, M. W., & Watson, G. S. (2020). A call for grounding implicit bias training in clinical and translational frameworks. Lancet, 395(10234), 1457–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hook, J., & Devereux, D. (2018). Sexual boundary violations: Victims, perpetrators, and risk reduction. BJPsych Advances, 24, 374–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoop, J. G., DiPasquale, T., Hernandez, J. M., & Roberts, L. R. (2008). Ethics and culture in mental health care. Ethics and Behavior, 18(4), 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, N. C., Bentley, K. H., Walton, A., Wang, S. B., Fortgang, R. G., Millner, A. J., Coombs, G., III, Rodman, A. M., & Coppersmith, D. (2020). Ethical dilemmas posed by mobile health and machine learning in psychiatry research. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 98(4), 270–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A. R. (1986). Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics. Theoretical Medicine, 7, 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A. R., & Toulmin, S. (1998). The abuse of casuistry. A history of moral reasoning. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamm, F. M. (2007). Intricate ethics: Rights, responsibilities, and permissible harms. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals (trans: Paton, H. J.). Harper and Row, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernberg, O. F. (2016). The four basic components of psychoanalytic technique and derived psychoanalytic psychotherapies. World Psychiatry, 15(3), 287–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, F. (1996). Theoretical medicine: A proposal for reconceptualizing medicine as a science of actions. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 21, 659–670.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, F. (1999). Bioethics: Moral dialogue in the life sciences. Universitaria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, F. (2002). Bioethics and psychiatry: A challenging future. World Psychiatry, 1(2), 127–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, F. (2009). The axiological dimension in psychiatric diagnosis. Acta Bioethica, 15(2), 148–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, F. (2010). Psychiatry: Medical specialty or specialized profession? World Psychiatry, 9(1), 34–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, F. (2011). Ethics and the anthropological medicine of the Heidelberg School: Reciprocity and solidarity. Jahr – European Journal of Bioethics, 2(4), 521–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, F. (2015). The basic discipline of psychiatry as metatext. Acta Bioethica, 21, 61–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, F. (2016). Psychiatry ethics. In H. Ten Have (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global bioethics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_355-1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, F. (2018). The hermeneutical dimension of the bioethical enterprise. Notes on the dialogical/narrative foundations of bioethics. Acta Bioethica, 24(2), 153–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, F., & Drumond, J. G. (2007). Fundamentos de umaantropologiabioetica (Foundations for a bioethical anthropology). Edicoes Loyola.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lustgarten, S. D., Garrison, Y. L., Sinnard, M. T., & Flynn, A. W. (2020). Digital privacy in mental healthcare: Current issues and recommendations for technology use. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merino, Y., Adams, L., & Hall, W. J. (2018). Implicit bias and mental health professionals: Priorities and directions for research. Psychiatric Services, 69(6), 723–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. M., Bener, A., Ghuloum, S., Commons, M. L., & Burgut, F. T. (2012). Differences and similarities in cross-cultural perceptions of boundaries: A comparison of results from two studies. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35(5–6), 398–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, & Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW). (1978). The Belmont report. NCPHSBBR/DHEW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachels, J. (2003). Elements of moral philosophy (4th ed., pp. 96–121). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabin, J. E., & Harland, J. C. (2017). Professional ethics for digital age psychiatry: Boundaries, privacy, and communication. Current Psychiatry Reports, 19(9), 55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saenz, S. R. (2020). Diverse patient populations in psychiatry: Ethical and clinical issues. Focus, 18(1), 52–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S. P. (2009). Life after therapy: Post-termination boundary violations in psychiatry and psychotherapy. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 15, 82–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savin, D., & Martinez, R. (2006). Cross-cultural boundary dilemmas: A graded-risk assessment approach. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(2), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scher, S., & Kozlowska, K. (2020). Teaching ethics in psychiatry: Time to reset. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 28(5), 328–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, C. (2019). Consequentialism: New directions, new problems. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shors, M. K., & Kroll, J. (2019). To cross or not to cross: Clinical boundary considerations with persons who are refugees. Transcultural Psychiatry, 2019, 1363461519878289. Advance online publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, J., Müller, J. A., & Trachsel, M. (2020). Ethical issues in online psychotherapy: A narrative review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of California. (1976). Tarasoff vs. The Regents of the University of California. Citation: 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 17 Cal. 3d 425. Available at: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1175611/tarasoff-v-regents-of-university-of-california/

  • Van Zyl, L. (2018). Virtue ethics: A contemporary introduction. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veatch, R. M. (2020). Reconciling lists of principles in bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 45, 540–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (2011). Standards and operational guidance for ethics review of health-related research with human participants. WHO.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Center for Studies in Bioethics, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Fernando Lolas

  2. Central University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Fernando Lolas

  3. Department of Psychiatry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

    Debasish Basu

Authors
  1. Fernando Lolas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debasish Basu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernando Lolas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

    Allan Tasman

  2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Cent, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Michelle B. Riba

  3. Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Oakland, CA, USA

    Renato D. Alarcón

  4. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, USA

    César A. Alfonso

  5. Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Shigenobu Kanba

  6. Department of Psychiatry, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

    David M. Ndetei

  7. Malaysian Research Inst on Ageing, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

    Chee H. Ng

  8. Department of Psychiatry, University of Munich, München, Bayern, Germany

    Thomas G. Schulze

  9. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia

    Dusica Lecic-Tosevski

Section Editor information

  1. Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, MN, USA

    Renato D. Alarcón

  2. Honorio Delgado Chair, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru

    Renato D. Alarcón

  3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA

    Maria Lapid

  4. Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress, Dept of Psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Robert J. Ursano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Lolas, F., Basu, D. (2023). Professional Ethics and Boundaries. In: Tasman, A., et al. Tasman’s Psychiatry. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42825-9_10-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42825-9_10-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42825-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42825-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation