The realities of risk, the nature of hope, and the role of science: A response to Cook and Vandecreek

M. David Rudd, Thomas Joiner, Gregory K. Brown, Kelly Cukrowicz, David A. Jobes, Morton Silverman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

A response is offered to the critiques of both Cook and VandeCreek. Among the points emphasized are the simple realities of risk with suicidal patients, existing empirical research with informed consent in both clinical psychology and other health care areas, as well as the persistence of common myths in clinical practice with suicidal patients. Although empirical science provides a firm foundation to much of what is proposed, it is critical for practitioners to recognize and respond to the ethical demands for openness and transparency with high-risk clients in an effort to achieve shared responsibility in care.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)474-475
Number of pages2
JournalPsychotherapy
Volume46
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2009

Keywords

  • Ethics
  • Informed consent
  • Shared responsibility
  • Suicide
  • Transparency

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The realities of risk, the nature of hope, and the role of science: A response to Cook and Vandecreek'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this