Time to Make a Call? The Ethics of Mandatory Reporting

Ethical Dilemmas and Countertransference in Legally Mandated Reporting of Fatal Child Neglect

In the fall of 2019, a much-publicized court case brought to national attention the issues of patient-doctor confidentiality when it comes to reporting the deaths of newborns in the United States. It is unclear whether the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade will lead to more cases like this. This article discusses issues of countertransference, as well as the ethical and legal implications were it to be a psychiatrist, in active treatment of such a patient, who would be required to make such a report. More specifically, as in the publicized court case, the patient could be a minor at the time, receiving treatment from a child psychiatrist. The implications of such a case include how countertransference affects the perception of fatal child neglect compared to intentional neonaticide; the ethical dilemma of generating a mandated report with the goal of child safety when such a report could lead to real legal consequences for a minor child; and considerations regarding continued treatment of a patient after such a report is made. It is likely that countertransference, shaped by attitudes toward mothers and idealized views on mothering, may play a large role in all these circumstances.

Views on mandatory reporting of impaired health practitioners by their treating practitioners: a qualitative study from Australia

OBJECTIVE

To explore the views and experiences of health sector professionals in Australia regarding a new national law requiring treating practitioners to report impaired health practitioners whose impairments came to their attention in the course of providing treatment.

METHOD

We conducted a thematic analysis of in-depth, semistructured interviews with 18 health practitioners and 4 medicolegal advisors from Australia's 6 states, each of whom had experience with applying the new mandatory reporting law in practice.

RESULTS

Interviewees perceived the introduction of a mandatory reporting law as a response to failures of the profession to adequately protect the public from impaired practitioners. Mandatory reporting of impaired practitioners was reported to have several benefits: it provides treating practitioners with a 'lever' to influence behaviour, offers protections to those who make reports and underscores the duty to protect the public from harm. However, many viewed it as a blunt instrument that did not sufficiently take account of the realities of clinical practice. In deciding whether or not to make a report, interviewees reported exercising clinical discretion, and being influenced by three competing considerations: protection of the public, confidentiality of patient information and loyalty to their profession.

CONCLUSIONS

Competing ethical considerations limit the willingness of Australian health practitioners to report impaired practitioner-patients under a mandatory reporting law. Improved understanding and implementation of the law may bolster the public protection offered by mandatory reports, reduce the need to breach practitioner-patient confidentiality and help align the law with the loyalty that practitioners feel to support, rather than punish, their impaired colleagues.