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

Authors

M. David Rudd, The University of Utah
Thomas Joiner, Florida State University
Gregory K. Brown, University of PennsylvaniaFollow
Kelly Cukrowicz, Texas Tech University
David A. Jobes, Catholic University of AmericaFollow
Morton Silverman, The University of Chicago

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. © 2009 American Psychological Association.

Publication Title

Psychotherapy

Recommended Citation

Rudd, M., Joiner, T., Brown, G., Cukrowicz, K., Jobes, D., & Silverman, M. (2009). The realities of risk, the nature of hope, and the role of science: A response to Cook and Vandecreek. Psychotherapy, 46 (4), 474-475. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017951