Reporting Ethical Violations
If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard , Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations , or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation. Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities. This standard does not apply when an intervention would violate confidentiality rights or when psychologists have been retained to review the work of another psychologist whose professional conduct is in question. (See also Standard , Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority .)
The sixth revision cycle commenced in May 2007. This consisted of a call for submissions, completed in August 2007. The terms of reference included only a limited revision compared to 2000.  In November 2007 a draft revision was issued for consultation till February 2008,  and led to a workshop in Helsinki in March.  Those comments were then incorporated into a second draft in May.   Further workshops were held in Cairo and São Paulo and the comments collated in August 2008. A final text was then developed by the Working Group for consideration by the Ethics Committee and finally the General Assembly, which approved it on October 18. Public debate was relatively slight compared to previous cycles, and in general supportive.  Input was received from a wide number of sources, some of which have been published, such as Feminist Approaches to Bioethics .  Others include CIOMS and the US Government.