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