Dialectical principlism: an approach to finding the most ethical action.

Most forensic psychiatrists occasionally face complex situations in forensic work in which ethics dilemmas cause discomfort. They want to determine the most ethical action, but the best choice is unclear. Fostering justice is primary in forensic roles, but secondary duties such as traditional biomedical ethics and personal values like helping society, combating racism, and being sensitive to cultural issues can impinge on or even outweigh the presumptive primary duty in extreme cases. Similarly, in treatment the psychiatrists' primary duty is to patients, but that can be outweighed by secondary duties such as protecting children and the elderly or maintaining security. The implications of one's actions matter. In forensic work, if the psychiatrist determines that he should not assist the party who wants to hire him, despite evidence clearly supporting its side, the only ethical option becomes not to accept the case at all, because the evidence does not support the better side. Sometimes it can be ethical to accept cases only for one side. In ethics-related dilemmas, I call the method of prioritizing and balancing all types of conflicting principles, duties, and personal and societal values in a dialectic to resolve conflicts among them dialectical principlism. This approach is designed to help determine the most ethical action. It is aspirational and is not intended to get the psychiatrist into trouble.