How Neuropsychologists Are Fighting Against Audio Recording Regulations in Nevada
In a notable case currently pending before the Supreme Court of Nevada, neuropsychologists are pushing back against a legal requirement that the neuropsychological examination be recorded in audio format. As per the district court’s ruling, audio recordings could ultimately restrict the ability of neuropsychologists to provide testing for litigants. The groups involved with this amicus brief are worried that such audio recordings may invalidate the data collected in neuropsychological examinations and thereby compromise the purpose of the tests. Furthermore, numerous neuropsychological associations have published ethical guidance recommending against audio recording during examinations. In this context, Michael Lowry, Partner-Las Vegas was retained by an alliance of neuropsychological governing boards and trade associations to file an amicus brief before the Supreme Court of Nevada.
Why Audio Recording of Neuropsychological Examinations Can Be Harmful
Research shows that any form of recording during a neuropsychological examination can significantly inhibit the data’s accuracy and reliability. Multiple studies have found that even the presence of a video camera in the environment can impact the client’s performance on neuropsychological tests significantly. In many cases, patients also feel intimidated and uneasy with the presence of audio recording equipment. The tests require undivided attention, and any disruption may lead to inaccurate results; therefore, neuropsychological associations have published ethical guidance recommending against audio recording during such examinations.
Neuropsychological Associations’ Stance on Audio Recording
The American Psychological Association, the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, and the National Academy of Neuropsychology are some of the neuropsychological associations that have explicitly advised against audio recording of examinations. These associations carefully monitor and formulate recommendations and ethical guidelines for members to follow. These guidelines were laid out to protect the interests of patients and reinforce the ethical standards of the practice. The exclusive concern with audio recording is that it can significantly impact patients’ right to privacy and can cause them distress, which would then impact test results.
The Amicus Brief and Its Importance
Lowry’s retention to file an amicus brief before the Supreme Court of Nevada is significant for the Nevada neuropsychologists and other litigants undergoing neuropsychological examinations. The alliance of neuropsychological governing boards and trade associations approached Lowry to represent them and file the amicus brief in their defense. The resources allocated to preparing the brief indicate the gravity of the situation and the potential impact on the field of neuropsychology.
Conclusion
The amicus brief filed before the Supreme Court of Nevada by an alliance of neuropsychological governing boards and trade associations, with representation from Michael Lowry, brings the issue of audio recording during neuropsychological examination to the forefront. The proper execution and diagnosis of neuropsychological assessments are crucial to patient treatment, and the audio recording of such examinations adversely affects the results. The amicus brief, if successful, will secure the interests of the litigants and neuropsychologists, thereby ensuring their right to privacy and maintained ethical guidelines.
Editor Notes
The movement against audio recording of neuropsychological examination brings the issue of privacy to the forefront. While technology is advancing, it is essential to consider the patients’ needs and safety before implementing policies. The Supreme Court of Nevada’s decision will influence the field of neuropsychology and may impact interdisciplinary practices in the future.
Visit GPT News Room for more groundbreaking stories and coverage of recent events shaping the world.
from GPT News Room https://ift.tt/m8gdLOJ
No comments:
Post a Comment