UPI Study › Courses › Business Ethics › Free lessons › Lesson 11.7 Free with a free account
Professional Ethics in Medicine and Psychology: Standards and Obligations
Business Ethics · Chapter 11: Consumer Rights and RegulationsSection 11.7 · lesson 68 of 10516 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Business Ethics.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Business Ethics
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: When Marketing Crosses a Line: Principles of Marketing Ethics →← Product Liability: Legal Standards and Business ImplicationsNext lesson: When Marketing Crosses a Line: Principles of Marketing Ethics →
In this lesson
Standards and Obligations.
- Explain information asymmetry and the need for licensing and professional ethics.
- Identify informed consent, confidentiality, competence, and non-exploitation.
- Distinguish licensing discipline from civil malpractice liability.
- Apply both enforcement tracks to the complete informed-consent case.
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,948 words). Read along, or search it.
Consumer Rights and Regulations
Professional Ethics in Medicine and Psychology
Medicine and psychology protect patients through professional qualifications, continuing obligations, and mechanisms for accountability. Patients often lack the expertise needed to assess a diagnosis or proposed treatment independently. Physical health and mental well-being also create potentially serious stakes within the care relationship. Those features support licensing before practice, alongside professional ethical standards governing conduct during care. The source identifies consent, confidentiality, competence, and avoiding exploitation as four shared ethical obligations. Consent requires meaningful information and voluntary choice, rather than treating a signature as sufficient. Confidentiality protects care information, while specific legal exceptions and duties require careful separate assessment. Competence concerns actual expertise, and non-exploitation concerns misuse of professional trust and unequal power. Licensing complaints and civil malpractice lawsuits can arise from the same incident on separate schedules. The board reviews professional standards and practice authority; the lawsuit seeks compensation under applicable law. A surgical-consent case illustrates these tracks through a reprimand, required training, and later settlement. We will preserve its facts while distinguishing teaching-example outcomes from guaranteed results in real cases.
Why Professional Services Need a Different Model
High Stakes and Unequal Knowledge Support Protection Before Care Begins
Many ordinary products can be inspected before purchase. Buyers may also compare or test them. Medical and psychological services often provide less opportunity for that kind of independent evaluation. A patient may not know whether a diagnosis is sound or a treatment plan appropriate. The source compares that difficulty with evaluating an ordinary appliance, using a toaster as its example. Information asymmetry means the professional possesses knowledge and expertise the patient or client usually lacks. Physical health and mental well-being make the possible consequences of poor care especially significant. These features support protection before care begins, by governing who is allowed to practice. Continuing ethical obligations then guide how that professional uses expertise within the relationship afterward. The source treats product-focused agency enforcement alone as insufficient to address these professional-care concerns. Every product is not easy to assess. Some purchases also carry significant stakes. State licensing is central in ordinary state practice, while other healthcare laws can also apply. Understand this as an entry-and-conduct model, rather than a claim that licensing eliminates every risk.
State Entry Requirements and Continuing Authority
Licensing Boards Govern Ordinary State Practice and Can Discipline Licensees
State licensing boards administer entry into medical and psychological practice under their applicable legal authority. The source names education, examinations, and supervised training as requirements before a license is granted. Specific requirements and pathways vary, so the lesson does not impose identical qualifications everywhere. A license authorizes practice under applicable conditions. It cannot guarantee every future decision is correct. The board retains authority during practice, rather than ending its responsibilities after the initial application. It can investigate relevant complaints and discipline proven violations through the applicable administrative process. Possible consequences include reprimand, practice conditions, suspension, or removal of the professional’s license. A complaint is an allegation requiring assessment, rather than automatic proof that misconduct occurred. Professional association codes provide ethical guidance, with their own scope and enforcement arrangements where applicable. They are not automatically identical to every state licensing statute or regulation governing discipline. The source’s central distinction concerns state professional practice authority rather than a federal product regulator. Other applicable legal protections remain relevant, and boards’ powers depend on their actual jurisdiction.
All Four Shared Obligations in the Source
Consent, Confidentiality, Competence, and Non-Exploitation Protect the Care Relationship
The source identifies four shared obligations: informed consent, confidentiality, competence, and avoiding exploitative relationships. Informed consent concerns information about relevant treatment risks, benefits, and alternatives before a voluntary decision. Confidentiality concerns protecting information obtained during care, subject to appropriate consent and applicable exceptions. Competence concerns the limits of actual expertise. Appropriate assistance or referral is needed when those limits are exceeded. Avoiding exploitation concerns protecting professional trust from personal gain and conflicting roles risking harm. These duties guide conduct throughout care, rather than applying only after an adverse outcome occurs. Informed consent especially requires communication, not simply obtaining a signature before the proposed treatment. The person needs understandable information and a genuine opportunity to decide under the relevant conditions. AMA guidance emphasizes understanding, voluntary choice, accurate relevant information, and documentation of the discussion. Appropriate alternatives include forgoing treatment, rather than assuming every proposed intervention must be accepted. Capacity, surrogate, emergency, and legally mandated-service rules can affect the applicable process in particular circumstances. The ordinary voluntary-treatment example does not remove those conditions or make every consent situation identical.
Confidentiality and the Duty-to-Warn Term
Protect Care Information While Applying the Actual Exception or Duty Precisely
Confidentiality protects information shared during care, maintaining a central boundary within the professional relationship. The source names a narrow legally recognized duty to warn as one possible exception. It describes specified serious threats, rather than allowing disclosure whenever any vague concern appears. Actual duties depend on jurisdiction, professional role, and the precise conditions established by relevant law. Begin by identifying which professional and legal confidentiality rules govern the information and circumstances. Then distinguish whether a rule permits disclosure, requires it, or does neither under those facts. Permission to disclose does not automatically create an identical legal duty for every healthcare professional. HHS guidance distinguishes HIPAA permissions from duties arising through applicable state law and professional standards. The threat, intended recipients, information disclosed, and applicable safeguards require careful examination in context. A diagnosis by itself does not remove confidentiality. It does not authorize disclosure to every recipient. The source’s term identifies a possible legal obligation, without supplying every jurisdiction’s exact threat test. Protect information while applying an actual exception or duty, rather than inventing a universal disclosure rule.
Competence and Dual Relationships
Professional Boundaries Address Limits of Expertise and Risks From Conflicting Roles
Competence requires recognizing the boundaries of actual training and expertise when providing professional services. A professional should obtain appropriate help or refer where needs exceed those practical competence limits. Relevant circumstances can involve consultation or supervision. One professional cannot pretend to understand every need. Avoiding exploitation separately concerns trust and power within the relationship between professional and patient. The source defines a dual relationship as a second, conflicting role with the same patient or client. That conflict can risk using professional trust for personal gain or compromising the original care relationship. Evaluate how another role could affect objectivity, competence, effectiveness, and the risk of exploitation or harm. APA’s published standard does not classify every harmless multiple relationship as necessarily unethical conduct. It focuses on reasonably expected impairment or risks, while some particular relationships are specifically prohibited. This qualification preserves the source’s concern with conflicting relationships rather than condemning every additional contact. Competence and boundaries both require attention to the person’s needs and actual professional responsibilities. Protect the care relationship by recognizing limits, managing conflicts appropriately, and avoiding exploitation of its trust.
The Source Figure’s One-to-Two Relationship
One Incident Can Lead to Both Licensing Review and a Civil Lawsuit
The original figure begins with one underlying incident, then branches into two possible enforcement tracks. A licensing board complaint addresses professional standards and the authority to continue practicing under a license. A civil malpractice lawsuit seeks compensation for alleged harm under the applicable legal claim. A patient or client may pursue both tracks, rather than necessarily choosing only one response. The source explains that they ask different questions and can follow entirely different schedules. A board can resolve its process while a civil case continues, as the later example illustrates. Its outcome does not automatically determine every required element or result in the other process. Separate purposes do not mean there can never be information or reporting connections between the systems. Actual rules may require reporting certain malpractice outcomes to a professional licensing authority for review. The branching figure therefore explains different accountability routes, rather than guaranteeing complete factual isolation. The next table retains who initiates each track, what is at stake, and possible outcomes. Compare those details carefully, keeping professional discipline distinct from the patient’s pursuit of compensation.
All Details and Captions in the Original Figure
The Initiator, Stakes, and Possible Outcome Differ Between the Two Tracks
A patient or client can bring a concern to the licensing board through a complaint. The source also allows the board to act on its own under its applicable authority. The patient or client brings a civil malpractice claim as the plaintiff in civil court. Licensing review concerns the professional’s ability to continue practicing, alongside applicable standards and conditions. Civil litigation concerns monetary compensation for alleged harm, where the claim succeeds or is settled. The source lists reprimand, suspension, and license revocation as possible consequences within the licensing track. It lists settlement or a court judgment awarding damages as possibilities within the civil track. Filing does not automatically guarantee a violation finding. Nor does it guarantee judgment, settlement, or payment. Each follows its own process and timeline, so either may finish before the other. California’s medical board distinguishes its administrative practice authority from providing compensation for malpractice harm. Its reporting rules also illustrate that specified civil outcomes can supply information for board review. Different questions remain central; disciplinary findings and code violations do not alone establish every civil element.
Complete Surgical-Consent Case
The Undisclosed Complication Leads to Discipline and a Later Civil Settlement
A physician recommends surgery but omits a known, significant risk of a particular complication. The source says most patients would want to understand that risk before deciding whether to proceed. The patient agrees to surgery, and the omitted complication subsequently occurs in the example. A second doctor explains that this risk was well known and should have been disclosed. The patient complains to the state medical board, which investigates the relevant informed-consent standard. The board finds a violation and issues a formal reprimand under the scenario’s specified outcome. It also requires additional training before the physician can perform that procedure unsupervised again. Separately, the patient brings a civil malpractice lawsuit seeking compensation for the complication’s harm. That lawsuit settles months after the board has already closed its disciplinary case in the example. The two outcomes reflect separate questions and schedules arising from the same informed-consent failure. No actual physician, jurisdiction, compensation amount, or court judgment is identified within the source. Do not infer that every complication proves negligent surgery, or every consent concern guarantees these outcomes.
All Five Key Terms
Distinguish Entry Authority, Patient Choice, Disclosure Duties, Liability, and Conflicting Roles
A licensing board administers professional entry and continuing disciplinary authority under the relevant state rules. Informed consent supports a genuine, voluntary decision through relevant information about the proposed care. A duty to warn identifies a legally recognized disclosure obligation where its particular conditions apply. Civil malpractice involves seeking compensation for harm allegedly caused by legally actionable substandard professional care. The source’s dual relationship is a second conflicting role risking exploitation of existing professional trust. These five terms separate practice authority, patient choice, disclosure obligations, compensation claims, and role conflicts. Information asymmetry and high stakes explain why entry qualifications alone need continuing obligations during care. Consent, confidentiality, competence, and avoiding exploitation identify the four shared duties examined in the lesson. Ethical expectations, licensing discipline, and civil liability can overlap. They do not thereby become identical. A code violation alone does not establish every element required for a successful civil malpractice claim. Actual consent conditions, confidentiality duties, licensing powers, and liability requirements need their own applicable standards. The source’s case illustrates this distinction through specific outcomes, rather than a universal claim-resolution formula.
All Five Takeaways and Review Questions
Explain Prevention, Board Authority, Shared Duties, Parallel Tracks, and Dual-Role Risk
The first review connects unequal expertise and health-related stakes with licensing and continuing professional obligations. The model offers protection before care, rather than depending solely on later product-style enforcement. The second names entry requirements and ongoing authority, including possible suspension or revocation of licensure. A license does not guarantee perfect care, and a complaint still needs an applicable assessment process. The third asks for two shared duties, but retain all four when reviewing professional conduct. Consent supports choice, confidentiality protects information, competence respects expertise limits, and non-exploitation protects relationship boundaries. The fourth explains the surgical case’s different outcomes through separate questions and procedural schedules. The board imposes reprimand and training; the civil lawsuit later settles the patient’s compensation claim. Those outcomes belong to the teaching example, without guaranteeing identical results for every patient or professional. The fifth defines a second conflicting relationship and its risk to existing trust and professional power. Harmless additional roles are not automatically unethical, but impairment, exploitation, harm, and specific prohibitions matter. Understand both accountability tracks while protecting meaningful consent, confidentiality, competent practice, and appropriate care boundaries.
About Business Ethics at UPI Study
Business Ethics (Business 211) is a self-paced online course of 105 video lessons in 19 chapters, from moral reasoning and compliance to governance, diversity, government and society, social responsibility, consumers, advertising, technology, the environment and global business. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Which ethics course? · Business Law vs Business Ethics
Why take it here
Why students take Business Ethics with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Business Ethics carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Professional Ethics in Medicine and Psychology: Standards and Obligations
Why are doctors and psychologists licensed?
What are the core ethical obligations of medical and mental health professionals?
What is the difference between a medical board complaint and a malpractice lawsuit?
What is a dual relationship in psychology?
About the Business Ethics course
How many college credits is Business Ethics?
How much does Business Ethics cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Business Ethics take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Business Ethics.
105 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →