Psychology 6300

Fall, 2007

Thursday 14:00 - 17:00

SBS 1326

S. L. Golding

Ethical and Legal Issues

in

Professional Psychology

Course structure

          This course is designed as a survey of the professional ethical standards and guidelines that are an integral part of professional and research practice in clinical psychology. In addition, fundamental legal concepts (e.g., malpractice, negligence), as well as state and federal law, rules and regulations, and landmark cases, which form an alternative basis for the regulation of professional activities, are reviewed. Finally, since ethical standards and guidelines are also based upon empirical research and professional knowledge, these are referenced and partially reviewed.

          The course format is lecture-discussion. Your responsibility is a) to have read the weekly course materials; b) to come prepared to discuss the materials and to participate in class discussions; and c) to respond to hypothetical questions and case vignettes. I will come prepared to give a "mini-lecture" on frequently misunderstood or difficult concepts, but will not cover the basic readings. I will also lead the discussions, to ensure that the fundamental problems are covered in each week's topics.

          As you will discover, ethical decision-making and regulation in psychology are based upon deduction from either a series of general and abstract ethical principles espoused by the profession, from legal principles, and from a professional research and knowledge base. Our course will match that structure. We will spend some time in the beginning reviewing the general principles, but will devote most of our time applying those principles to selected areas.

          There will be a take-home mid-term examination covering some of these general principles and your ability to find and evaluate the professional and legal literature relevant to a particular ethical or professional issue. It will be worth 40% of your grade. The final “examination” will consist of two parts, and will also be worth 50% of the grade. Part I (10%) will be a short paper (no more than 5 pages!) written in the style of “APA Ethics Code Tune-up proposals ”. Part II (40%) will be a somewhat longer (10-15 pages) paper in which you will analyze the ethical principles, the relevant legal standards, and the research and professional literature with respect to a highly specific topic of your choosing (with the prior approval of the instructor). You should choose a topic that reflects your some aspect of the topics we will be covering as they apply to your own specialty interests in professional aspects psychology. In order to obtain my approval you must a) submit a topic and some suggested primary references and b) submit an outline of the paper, by the times indicated in the course schedule.

          The remaining 10% of your grade will be based upon class participation in our discussions ( the quality of your participation in class discussions, preparation for class, engagement with the materials).

Office Hours:

          By arrangement. Email or telephone me and we will set up a time. Best are the hours before or after class. At other times, by arrangement, I am available for personal consultation using both telephonic and web-based video.

Availability of Bibliography: Once class begins, a rather lengthy bibliography of ethical, professional and legal literatures will be available on my website, http://home.comcast.net/~slgolding. Navigate to “course notes”, click on the class [6300] and you will find the bibliography as well as other materials announced in class. I try to keep the bibliography reasonably up-to-date, but as I age, this becomes harder [and more boring]. As “Modern students” [with due credit to George Carlin], I expect that you will be facile with computer based searches and search techniques to follow-up on topics that interest you, do research for your mid-term and final papers, etc. The bibliography is a good starting place, but you also need to learn other techniques. Because the legal system has a great deal to say about professional standards of practice, licensure, liability, etc., you must also learn how to do scholarly research in the legal arena, at least how to find state statutes, find how to interpret them, find critical summaries of legal issues, and so forth. To assist you in this, I have arranged an instructional class at the Law Library. The time and date will be announced in class. To prepare for that “short course,” you need to first work your way through the web-based tutorial found at the Quinney Law Library web-site. The tutorial is self-guided. Please complete this tutorial before the Law Library tour. Also of help is the Guide to Legal Internet Research found at http://www.law.utah.edu/_files/library/lrnet.pdf.

          There is also an assignment that you should complete, on your own, after the Law Library tour and turn in at the next week’s class. The assignment is this:

          Find a law review that summarizes the responsibilities of supervisors in supervising unlicensed psychology graduate students, with a specific focus on the supervisor’s liability for failure to properly supervise a student. The source must be no older than 10 years, i.e. 1997 onwards. You must complete this assignment on your own, with no help from classmates, professors, other graduate students or law librarians, i.e. you and only you. The written product of the assignment is quite simply a) the full citation to the law review; b) the conditions under which the supervisee’s actions are covered by the supervisor’s insurance or the University’s insurance.

Note on computer search techniques: If you are not facile with PsychInfo, you should become so. Obtain an account with EbscoHost, because it has a much more sophisticated interface that regular PsychInfo and you can store searches, do linked searches, and the like. See accompanying handout for some further hints.

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT: This course covers a wide variety of clinical and professional topics related to your clinical work, your development as a professional, your role relationships with other students and faculty, etc. It is essential that you a) feel free to discuss issues directly and forthrightly, b) that you not identify the particular client, peer or supervisor by name, c) that you not use the privilege of honest discussion to work some private agenda, and d) that you keep in confidence all that is said, by others, by me, and by yourself, within the confines of the class. To make this class real, and meaningful, this ground rule is obviously necessary.

N.B. Given normal aging processes, as well as normal professorial befuddlement and the complexity of a course such as this, it is inevitable that I will have failed to do something, like put a particular article on reserve or on my website, or mistype a date or someting else. Please notify me immediately when you discover this at slgolding@comcast.net .

Course outline

REQUIRED READINGS [**] AND SUGGESTED SOURCES [! –NOT REQUIRED]

Week 2:

** American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. http://www2.apa.org/ethics/92-02codecompare.doc

**Golding, S.L. (2003). Comparing the new/old EPPCC http://home.comcast.net/~slgolding/publications/EPPCC_comparison.htm

**Smith,D. (2003). Ten ways practitioners can avoid frequent ethical pitfalls. Monitor on Psychology, January 2, 2003.

!Fisher, C. (2003). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Week 3

          Library tour

Cox, T. (1006). Legal research for the social scientist. In A. Hess & I. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology, Third Edition (pp. 59-72). New York: Wiley.

Week 4

**Hansen, N. D, & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Navigating the nuances: A matrix of considerations for ethical-legal dilemmas. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30(5), 495-503.

**Psychologist's Licensing Act (2007). Utah Code Ann.§58-61-101 et seq.

**Psychologist Licensing Act Rules (2007) Utah Administrative Code §R156-61-101 et seq.

**Denial of Licensure (2007) Utah Code Ann.§58-1-401

**Utah Rules of Evidence (2007) Rule 506: Privileges

**University of Utah, Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities, PPM 8-10 (Rev.6, 2007) (Available electronically at http://www.admin.utah.edu/ppmanual )

Week 5

**Committee on Professional Practice and Standards. (2003). Legal issues in the professional practice of psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(6), 595-600.

**Golding, S. L. Introduction to the law of torts and Negotiating the Gauntlet of Law, Ethics and Professional Practice, Pp. 1-26. Unpublished materials, uploaded to Electronic reserve.

!Simon, R. I. (1992). Clinical psychiatry and the law, Second Edition. Washington, D. C. : American Psychiatric Press, Inc. (Highly recommended as a comprehensive overview of various malpractice problems; not required for the course, but you should own this or the Gutheil/Appelbaum book!)

!Gutheil, T. G., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2000). Clinical handbook of psychiatry and the law (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA, US: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Week 6

**Appelbaum, P. (2002). Privacy in psychiatric treatment: Threats and responses. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159(11), 1809-1818.

**Golding, S. L. (1998). Introduction to the law of torts and Negotiating the Gauntlet of Law, Ethics and Professional Practice, Pp. 47-76. Unpublished materials, uploaded to Electronic reserve.

**Shuman, D., & Foote, W. (1999). Jaffee v. Redmond's impact :Life after the Supreme Court's recognition of a psychotherapist-patient privilege. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 30(5), 479-487.

!Department of Health and Human Services (Office of Civil Rights). (2003). Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information. 45 CFR 160/164.

[Also known as under the enacting legislation as Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act {HIPAA}. Available on electronic reserve and also at http://www.os.dhhs.gov/ocr/combinedregtext.pdf. [This is a long a complicated document, summarized in the required Appelbaum reading. If you ever bill an insurance company for services, you are covered under this act and must register your compliance with DHHS]

Week 7

**Bersoff, D. N. (1999). Ethical conflicts in psychology Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association Press, Pp. 355-392.

**Friedman, L., & Richter, E. (2004). Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1974, 51-56.

**Iltis, A. (2006). Lay concepts in informed consent to biomedical research: The capacity to understand and appreciate risk. Bioethics., 20(4), 180-190.

**Kim, S., Appelbaum, P., Swan, J., & et al. (2007). Determining when impairment constitutes incapacity for informed consent in schizophrenia research. British Journal of Psychiatry, 191, 38-43.

**Melander, H., Ahlqvist-Rastad, J., Meijer, G., & Beerman, B. (2003). Evidence b(i)ased medicine - selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry:Review of studies in new drug applications. British Medical Journal, 326, 1171-1173.

**Poythress, N. (2002). Obtaining informed consent for research: A model for use with participants who are mentally ill. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 30, 1-8.

!DuVal, G. (2004). Ethics in Psychiatric Research: Study Design Issues. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49(1), 55-59.

!Pomerantz, A., & Handelsman, M. (2004). Informed consent revisited: An updated written question format. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(2), 201-205.

!Temple, R., & Ellenberg, S. (2000). Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: Ethical and scientific issues. Part 2: Practical Issues and specific cases. Annals of Internal Medicine, 133(6), 455-463;464-470.

Week 8

NO CLASS

Week 9

**Gavey, N, & Braun, V. (1997). Ethics and the publication of clinical case material. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 399-404.

**Hall, S. (2007). Child abuse reporting laws and attorney-client privilege:Ethical dilemmas and practical suggestions for the forensic psychologist. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6, 55-68.

**Monahan, J. (1993). Limiting therapist exposure to Tarasoff liability. American Psychologist, 48, 242-250.

**Utah Code Annotated (2007). Limitation of therapist's duty to warn. §78-14a-102. [See Higgins v. Salt Lake County and Wilson v. Valley Mental Health, below, especially the rather infamous “We are troubled that section 78-14a-102 may inadvertently operate to create an incentive on the part of therapists to avoid diagnostically appropriate examinations that could reveal specific threats and result in a consequent duty to take preventive measures. But the language of the statute is plain. Therefore, our case law must yield.”]

**Quattrocchi, M., & Schopp, R. (2005). Tarasaurus rex: A standard of care that could not adapt. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 109-137.

**State of Utah. (2007). Human Services Code -- Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation of Disabled Adult. Utah Code Annotated §62A-3-301 et seq.

**Utah Code Annotated (2007). Child abuse reporting act. §62a-4a-401 et seq.

! Behnke on child abuse reports 1 http://www.apa.org/monitor/may02/ethicsrounds.html

! Behnke on child abuse reports 2 http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug02/ethicsrounds.html

!Borum, R., & Reddy, M. (2001). Assessing violence risk in Tarasoff situations: A fact-based model of inquiry. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 375-385. [Obviously not required, but on reserve and a good thing to consult].

!Small, M., Lyons, P., & Guy, L. (2002). Liability issues in child abuse and neglect reporting statutes. Professional Psychology, 33(1), 13-18.

!Spring, R. L, Lacoursiere, R. B. & Weissenberger, G. (1990). Patients, psychiatrists and lawyers: Law and the mental health system. Chapter 3 (Very highly recommended, but not technically required -the patient-mental health professional relationship). Cincinnati: Anderson, Pp. 143-220 [Tarasoff, privilege and confidentiality from a legal perspective].

!Utah Code Annotated (2007). Duty to report person suspected of having communicable disease. §26-6-6.

Week 10

**Gabbard, G. O. (2002, Sep). Post-termination sexual boundary violations. . Psychiatric Clinics of North America., 25(3), 593-603.

**Gutheil, T. G., & Simon, R. I. (2002, Sep). Non-sexual boundary crossings and boundary violations: The ethical dimension. Psychiatric Clinics of North America., 25(3), 585-592. US: WB Saunders.

**Simon, R. I. (1992). Treatment boundary violations: Clinical, ethical and legal considerations. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 20, 269-288.

**Younggren, J., & Gottlieb, M. (2004). Managing risk when contemplating multiple relationships. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 35(3), 255-260.

Week 11

**Barnett, J., Wise, E., Johnson-Greene-D, & Bucky, S. (2007). Informed consent: Too much of a good thing or not enough? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 79-86.

**Committee on Professional Practice and Standards. (1995). Twenty-four questions (and answers) about professional practice in the area of child abuse. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 377-385.

**Committee on Professional Practice and Standards. (1993). Record keeping guidelines. American Psychologist, 48, 984-986.

**Gutheil, T. G., & Hilliard, J. T. (2001). "Don't write me down": Legal, clinical, and risk-management aspects of patients' requests that therapists not keep notes or records. . American Journal of Psychotherapy., 55(2), 157-165.

**Packman, W., Pennuto, T., Bongar, B., & Orthwein, J. (2004). Legal issues of professional negligence in suicide cases. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 22, 697-713

**Hamilton, J. C, & Spruill, J. (1999). Identifying and reducing risk factors related to trainee-client sexual misconduct. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30(3), 318-327.

**Harrar, W. R, VandeCreek, L, & Knapp, S. (1990). Ethical and legal aspects of clinical supervision. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 21, 37-41.

! Behnke on supervision http://www.apa.org/monitor/may05/ethics.html

Week 12

**Acuff, C, Bennett, B. E, Bricklin, P. M, Canter, M. B, Knapp, S. J, Moldawsky, S, & Phelps, R. (1999). Considerations for ethical practice in managed care. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 30(6), 563-575.

**Committee on Legal Issues. (1996). Strategies for private practitioners coping with subpoenas or compelled testimony for client records or test data. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 245-251.

**Erard, R. E. (2004). Release of test data under the 2002 ethics code and the HIPAA privacy rule A raw deal or just a half-baked idea. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(1), 23-30.January 9, 2005

**McMinn, M. R., Ellens, B. M., & Soref, E. (1999). Ethical perspectives and practice behaviors involving computer-based test interpretation. Assessment., 6(1), 71-77.

**Miller, I. J. (1996). Managed care is harmful to outpatient mental health services: A call for accountability. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 349-363.

**Turner, S., DeMers, S., Fox, H., & Reed, G. (2001). APA's Guidelines for test user qualifications. American Psychologist, 56(12), 1099-1113.

 ! Behnke on release of test data http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/release.html

! Behnke on automated interpretation http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar04/ethics.html

!American Psychological Association. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, D.C.: Author. (Copy available from the Clinical Office;if you are at all interesting in specializing in assessment, you need to order this from APA and know it well; for others, this is a suggested reading or browsing)).

Week 13

**Bergin, A. E. (1991). Values and religious issues in psychotherapy and mental health. American Psychologist, 46, 394-403.

**Brown, D. C. (1994). Subgroup norming: Legitimate testing practice or reverse discrimination. American Psychologist, 49, 927-928.

**Hall, G. C. N. (2001, Jun). Psychotherapy research with ethnic minorities: Empirical, ethical, and conceptual issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology., 69(3), 502-510.

**McMinn, M. R., Buchanan, T., Ellens, B. M., & Ryan, M. K. (1999, Apr). Technology, professional practice, and ethics: Survey findings and implications. Professional Psychology, 30(2), 165-172.

**Snow, D. L., Grady, K., & Goyette-Ewing, M. (2000). A perspective on ethical issues in community psychology. In J. Rappaport, E. Seidman & et-al. (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology. (pp. 897-917). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

**Stuart, R. (2004). Twelve practical suggestions for achieving multicultural competence. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 35(1), 3-9.

! Behnke on Listserv consultations: http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug07/ethicsrounds.html

Week 14

**Biaggio M, Paget, T. L, & Chenoweth, M. (1997). A model for the ethical management of faculty-student relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28 (2), 184-189.

**COPPS. (1999). Guidelines for psychological evaluations in child protection matters. American Psychologist, 54, 586-593.

**Committee on Professional Practice and Standards (1994), Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings, American Psychologist , 49, 677-680.

**Fisher, C. B. (1995). The American Psychological Association's (1992) Ethics Code and the validation of sexual abuse in day-care settings. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1, 461-478.

**Gottlieb, M., Robinson, K., & Younggren, J. (2007). Multiple relations in supervision:Guidance for administrators, supervisors and students. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 241-247.

**Kirkland, K., & Kirkland, K. (2001). Frequency of child custody evaluation complaints and related disciplinary action: A survey of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. Professional Psychology, 32(2), 171-174.

**Johnson, W. B., Porter, K., Campbell, C. D., & Kipko, E. N. (2005). Character and fitness requirements for professional psychologists: An examination of state licensing application forms. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 367(6), 654-662.

**Sullivan, L. E, & Ogloff, J. R. (1998). Appropriate supervisor-graduate student relationships. Ethics and Behavior, 8(3), 229-248.

! Behnke on problems with minor consent and confidentiality http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/ethics.html

! Behnke on ethical problems with colleagues and students http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar06/ethics.html

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/ethics.html

!Fly, B. J, van Bark, W. P, & et al. (1997). Ethical transgressions of psychology graduate students: Critical incidents with implications for training. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28 (5), 492-495.

!Koocher, G. P. & Keith-Spiegel, P. C. (1990). Children, ethics and the law: Professional issue and cases. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. (Not required, but contains a comprehensive, if somewhat dated, review. See especially, Psychotherapy with children, 21-46; Ethical issues in the psychological assessment of children, 47-68; Confidentiality,. 69-88; Children and the courts, 163-192)

Week 15

**Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.

**Golding, S. L. (1990). Mental health professionals and the courts: The ethics of expertise. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 13, 261-307.

**Greenberg, S. A, & Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28 (1), 50-57.

**Gutheil, T. G., & Simon, R. I. (1999). Attorneys' pressures on the expert witness: Early warning signs of endangered honesty, objectivity, and fair compensation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law., 27(4), 546-553.

Week 16

Class presentations of synopsis of your paper

FINDING AND EVALUATING LITERATURE

IN

PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW

I.        Essential Issues in evaluating literature in psychology and law

          A.       Interestingly, though their methods are very different, science and law share some fundamental epistemological assumptions

          B.       For science, “truth” emerges as ideas/theory are cast in terms that permit them to be subjected to empirical scrutiny and to rigorous attempts to prove them wrong [the so-called “falsifiability criterion”]. Similarly, “truth” in a legal dispute is assumed [in adversarial systems] to emerge as a function of the application of rigorous argumentation, logic and cross-examination.

          C.       Thus, both disciplines value a critical analysis of “data and theory,”  and this is essentially “peer review” [in the social sciences] and case law and legal commentary [in the legal arena].

          D.       Therefore, a skill that you need to acquire is finding the critical literature about a particular idea, concept or proposition. Since scientific (legal) ideas live [and die] by their treatment in the literature (courts; legislatures), learning how to access those literatures, so that you can take advantage of the critical scholarship of others, is crucial.

II.       Basic Database Searches

          A.       The best general and basic resource is for psychology is PsychInfo (The Ebsco version for faculty and students at

                     http://www.lib.utah.edu/dbaccess/alpha/p.html

It is really critical that you learn how to use this, or a similar, resource. There is an online tutorial on the basics and the library routinely runs short classes as well. There is also a Search Builder for those of you who are unfamiliar with the basics of Boolean searches and search logic. Some general hints about PsychInfo, however, are also in order.

                     1.       Once you have found a good example of the type of article that you are looking for, careful attention to aspects of it’s database entry will lead you to more like [and “opposed” to] it.

                     2.       All entries are classified (unlike full text databases like Lexis/Nexis). This means that two general search strategies for finding similar entries exist.

                                a.       You can look at the abstract field and find words and phrases within it that are critical and unique to the type of article that you seek and conduct another search within that field. Then you can restrict your search to those words or that phrase in either the title [TI] or abstract [AB] field.

                                b.       You can look at the full record and note the MJ (major) MN (minor) descriptors. Clicking on either of these will produce a search of all records that contain that descriptor in either the MJ or MN fields. You can also look up those terms in the Thesaurus and see how those terms are classified, in terms of narrower and broader topics. In other words, you can investigate the ways in which an article that is “on topic” is classified and use that to refine your search logic to find similar supportive and critical articles.

                                           (1)      N.B. Some databases, and some electronic journals when you go to the article that you are interested in, provide “citation links.” That is, other articles that have cited this article. This is akin to “Shepardizing” a case in the legal literature, and is a very powerful technique once you have narrowed your search and have found a “central” article. A version of this is available with PsychInfo, but only for more recent articles. If you find a pivotal article, you can search for it within the Index.

          B.       Web of Science

                     1.       This is a far more complex database covering a wider range of articles from the physical and social sciences as well as the humanities. Published by ISI, it can be accessed through the Eccles Library, or directly, if signing on via the UU system or proxy at http://isi6.newisiknowledge.com/portal.cgi

                     2.       While this tool can be used for general searches, it tends to produce a very large number of records and its interface gives less information without further “clicking” than PsychInfo. However, unlike PsychInfo it has two priceless functions built in. If you click on “find related records” or choose the records you want to relate to from the “cited references” list, it will search for all articles that cite to your article and its references, ordered in terms of highest number of hits. This is very useful in finding all references that target on the concept of a given article.

                     3.       You can also do a direct cited references search and you can combine searches as well as do very sophisticated advanced searches.

          C.       PubMed

                     1.       This database, a publication of the National Library of Medicine is available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

                     2.       This database uses MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) descriptors and tags, and is very useful for probing the medical aspects of social science/forensic - law interactions.

                     3.       A bonus feature is a very sophisticated “related articles” algorithm, based upon similarities in the abstracts as well as MeSH headings that enables you to find on-target related articles.

          D.       Findlaw

                     1.       This database is a great entry point for finding cases, statutes and codes for the states and the Federal Government, as well as courts at all levels

                                http://www.findlaw.com/

                     2.       It also organizes a variety of useful search engines, such as lawcrawler, which can be used to search legal websites for cases and materials on particular topics. You can also navigate to it directly at http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/ .

          E.       Lexis-Nexis Academic [a stripped down version of the full Lexis-Nexis]. An essential database for all legal research. Use of this will be explained at the Law School lecture, after you have completed the required internet tutorial. It may be accessed at http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe  

          F.       Some web sites are particularly useful for searching in the area of psychology, law and ethics. Among the best are

                     1.       http://www.kspope.com This site contains hyperlinks to a large number of ethics codes, commentaries and articles on particular topics of interest [e.g. informed consent, HIPAA].

III.      Main Pages for the Three Libraries

          A.       These organize all of the electronic resources available at each

          B.       http://www.law.utah.edu/library/ Entry point to the Quinney Law Library. Research links to case law, statutes and secondary sources such as LegalTrac, Index to Legal Periodicals, Academic Universe and so forth

          C.       http://www.lib.utah.edu Entry point to the Marriott Library, extensive collection of searchable databases [for example, PsychInfo] and electronic journals.

          D.       http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu Entry point to the Eccles Health Sciences Library. Extensive collection of medical databases, electronic journals.

Happy Searching!