title: Responses to perceived unethical practices in clinical neuropsychology: ethical and legal considerations.
abstract: Neuropsychologists often review the work of colleagues who have performed a neuropsychological evaluation. At times, these reviews may cause one to believe that a colleague acted in an unethical manner. However, it is often unclear whether the situation warrants contacting the colleague or filing a complaint. This article provides examples of potential unethical practices in neuropsychology, and then reviews the relevant ethical principles and legal precedents concerning the obligations and possible risks of reporting perceived unethical practices of a colleague. The paper concludes with a series of recommendations and options as to when and how one should proceed in such situations.
authors.affiliation: Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States of America. cgrote@rush.edu
authors.forename: C L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Grote
authors.forename: J L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Lewin
authors.forename: J J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Sweet
authors.forename: W G
authors.initials: WG
authors.lastname: van Gorp
mesh_terms: D003219:Confidentiality / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004995:Ethics, Professional; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D019221:Mandatory Reporting; D009484:Neuropsychology / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000592:standards*; D010380:Peer Review / Q000592:standards*; D014481:United States