Citation

Steinberg AM, Pynoos RS, Goenjian AK, Sossanabadi H, Sherr L. Child Abuse Negl. 1999; 23(8): 771-777.

Affiliation

Trauma Psychiatry Program, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California at Los Angeles, 90024, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1999, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

10477237

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To discuss issues concerning mandatory reporting of child abuse in research settings. METHOD: An overview of existing Federal and State statutes regarding mandatory reporting of child abuse is presented. A critical review of the literature addresses the following issues: (1) whether researchers have a moral duty to place the health and safety of children above concerns about confidentiality and the benefits of obtaining new knowledge; (2) whether the Certificate of Confidentiality preempts reporting requirements; (3) whether researchers who are not health professionals (such as child developmentalists, psychobiologists, neuroscientists) should be required to report; and (4) whether researchers should be required to expand their protocols to include more in-depth investigation of potential abuse. RESULTS: Existing child abuse reporting laws do not specifically designate researchers as among the category of individuals mandated to report suspected child abuse. Currently, Human Subject Protection Committees and Federal funding agencies are tending to interpret reporting laws as applying to researchers, including requiring that research subjects are informed of this responsibility in consenting procedures. It is unclear whether the Certificate of Confidentiality preempts child abuse reporting laws. CONCLUSION: The authors recommend that legislatures specifically designate researchers as mandated reporters to ensure more uniform reporting practices in research settings. For both investigators and Human Subject Protection Committees, inclusion of researchers among the categories of those mandated to report would also help address issues of immunity from civil and criminal liability for "good faith" reports that turn out to be false and injurious.

Language: en