Psychology Ethics Case Study

APS Code of Ethics© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
ABN 23 000 543 788
The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Level 13, 257 Collins Street, Melbourne
PO Box 38, Flinders Lane VIC 8009
Ph: +61 3 8662 3300 Fax: +61 3 9663 6177
Email: contactus@psychology.org.au
Website: www.psychology.org.au
18APS-COE-P2
Contents
Preface
5
Preamble
6
Code of Ethics
8
Definitions
8
Interpretation
10
Application of the Code
10
 eneral Principle A: Respect for the rights and
G
dignity of people and peoples
11
Explanatory Statement
11
Ethical Standards
11
A.1. Justice
11
A.2. Respect
12
A.3. Informed consent
13
A.4. Privacy
14
A.5. Confidentiality
15
A.6. Release of information to clients
16
A.7. Collection of client information from associated parties 16
General Principle B: Propriety
Explanatory Statement
Ethical Standards
B.1. Competence
B.2. Record keeping
B.3. Professional responsibility
B.4.  Provision of psychological services at the
request of a third party
B.5.  Provision of psychological services to multiple clients
B.6. Delegation of professional tasks
B.7. Use of interpreters
B.8.  Collaborating with others for the benefit of clients
B.9. Accepting clients of other professionals
B.10. Suspension of psychological services
B.11. Termination of psychological services
B.12. Conflicting demands
B.13. Psychological assessments
B.14. Research
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
18
18
18
18
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
3
Contents
General Principle C: Integrity
Explanatory Statement
Ethical Standards
C.1. Reputable behaviour
C.2. Communication
C.3. Conflict of interest
C.4. Non-exploitation
C.5. Authorship
C.6. Financial arrangements
C.7. Ethics investigations and concerns
26
26
26
26
26
28
28
29
29
30
Appendix
31
Current Ethical Guidelines
4
Code of Ethics
31
www.psychology.org.au
Preface
Preface
The Australian Psychological Society Limited (the Society) adopted this Code
of Ethics (the Code) at its Forty-First Annual General Meeting held on 27
September 2007. This Code supersedes the Code of Ethics previously adopted
at its Thirty-First Annual General Meeting held on 4 October 1997, and
modified on 2 October 1999; on 29 September 2002; and on 4 October 2003.
The Code of Ethics is subject to periodic amendments, which will be
communicated to members of the Society, and published on the Society
website. Members must ensure that they are conversant with the current
version of the Code. An electronic version of the Code is available at
www.psychology.org.au.
This Code may be cited as the Code of Ethics (2007) and a specific ethical
standard should be referred to as “standard A.2. of the Code of Ethics
(2007)”. Amended standards can be referred to as: standard A.2. of the
Code of Ethics (2007) (as amended in …). In a reference list the Code can be
referenced as:
Australian Psychological Society. (2007). Code of ethics. Melbourne, Vic: Author.
Ethical Guidelines that accompany the Code of Ethics will be produced,
amended and rescinded from time to time, and members are advised to
ensure their versions of the Guidelines are current.
Psychologists seeking clarification or advice on the matters contained
herein should write to the:
Executive Director
The Australian Psychological Society Limited
PO Box 38
Flinders Lane
Victoria 8009
AUSTRALIA
12 September 2007; reprinted April 2009; reprinted February 2011; reprinted June 2012;
reprinted September 2013; reprinted October 2016; reprinted April 2018.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
5
Preamble
Preamble
The Australian Psychological Society Code of Ethics articulates and
promotes ethical principles, and sets specific standards to guide both
psychologists and members of the public to a clear understanding and
expectation of what is considered ethical professional conduct
by psychologists.
It is important that the codes of professional associations should be
reviewed regularly to ensure that they remain relevant and functional in
the face of the evolution of the relevant association and changes in its
environment. Accordingly, since its inception in 1949, the Code of Ethics
(which was at times called the Code of Professional Conduct) of the
Australian Psychological Society has been reviewed in 1960, 1968, 1986,
and 1997. In undertaking the current review, the Society has attempted to
reflect established ethical principles in the practice of the profession within
the context of the current regulatory environment.
The current Code has been developed through a process of ongoing
reflection within the Society about the ethical responsibilities of
psychologists and a formal review of the 1997 Code with reference to
comparable national and international professional codes of ethics.
The Code is built on three general ethical principles. They are:
A. Respect for the rights and dignity of people and peoples
B. Propriety
C. Integrity.
The general principle, Respect for the rights and dignity of people and
peoples, combines the principles of respect for the dignity and respect
for the rights of people and peoples, including the right to autonomy
and justice.
The general principle, Propriety, incorporates the principles of beneficence,
non-maleficence (including competence) and responsibility to clients, the
profession and society.
6
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
The general principle, Integrity, reflects the need for psychologists to have
good character and acknowledges the high level of trust intrinsic to their
professional relationships, and impact of their conduct on the reputation of
the profession.
Preamble
The Code expresses psychologists’ responsibilities to their clients, to the
community and society at large, and to the profession, as well as colleagues
and members of other professions with whom they interact.
Each general principle is accompanied by an explanatory statement that
helps psychologists and others understand how the principle is enacted in
the form of specific standards of professional conduct.
The ethical standards (standards) derived from each general principle
provide the minimum expectations with regard to psychologists’
professional conduct, and conduct in their capacity as Members of
the Society. Professional conduct that does not meet these standards
is unethical and is subject to review in accordance with the Rules and
Procedures of the Ethics Committee and the Ethics Appeals Committee
contained in the Standing Orders of the Board of Directors of the Society.
These standards are not exhaustive. Where specific conduct is not
identified by the standards, the general principles will apply.
The Code is complemented by a series of Ethical Guidelines (the Guidelines).
The purpose of the Guidelines is to clarify and amplify the application of
the general principles and specific standards contained in the Code, and
to facilitate their interpretation in contemporary areas of professional
practice. The Guidelines are subsidiary to the relevant sections of the
Code, and must be read and interpreted in conjunction with the Code.
Psychologists who have acted inconsistently with the Guidelines may be
required to demonstrate that their behaviour was not unethical.
Psychologists respect and act in accordance with the laws of the
jurisdictions in which they practise. The Code should be interpreted with
reference to these laws. The Code should also be interpreted with reference
to, but not necessarily in deference to, any organisational rules and
procedures to which psychologists may be subject.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
7
Code of Ethics
Definitions*
For the purposes of this Code, unless the context indicates otherwise:
Associated party means any person or organisation other than clients with
whom psychologists interact in the course of rendering a psychological
service. This includes, but is not limited to:
(a) clients’ relatives, friends, employees, employers, carers and guardians;
(b) other professionals or experts;
(c) representatives from communities or organisations.
Definitions
Client means a party or parties to a psychological service involving teaching,
supervision, research, or professional practice in psychology. Clients may
be individuals, couples, dyads, families, groups of people, organisations,
communities, facilitators, sponsors, or those commissioning or paying for
the professional activity.
Code means this APS Code of Ethics (2007) as amended from time to time,
and includes the definitions and interpretation, the application of the Code,
all general principles, and the ethical standards.
Conduct means any act or omission by psychologists:
(a) that others may reasonably consider to be a psychological service;
(b) outside their practice of psychology which casts doubt on their
competence and ability to practise as psychologists;
(c) outside their practice of psychology which harms public trust in the
discipline or the profession of psychology;
(d) in their capacity as Members of the Society;
as applicable in the circumstances.
* Defined terms are designated in the Code by appearing in italics.
8
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
Guidelines mean the Ethical Guidelines adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Society from time to time that clarify and amplify the application
of the Code of Ethics. The Guidelines are subsidiary to the Code, and must
be read and interpreted in conjunction with the Code. In the case of any
apparent inconsistency between the Code and the Guidelines, provisions of
the Code prevail. A psychologist acting inconsistently with the Guidelines
may be required to demonstrate that his or her conduct was not unethical.
Jurisdiction means the Commonwealth of Australia or the state or territory
in which a psychologist is rendering a psychological service.
Definitions
Legal rights mean those rights protected under laws and statutes of
the Commonwealth of Australia, or of the state or territory in which a
psychologist is rendering a psychological service.
Member means a Member, of any grade, of the Society.
Moral rights incorporate universal human rights as defined by the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that might or might not be
fully protected by existing laws.
Multiple relationships occur when a psychologist, rendering a psychological
service to a client, also is or has been:
(a) in a non-professional relationship with the same client;
(b) in a different professional relationship with the same client;
(c) in a non-professional relationship with an associated party; or
(d) a recipient of a service provided by the same client.
Peoples are defined as distinct human groups with their own social
structures who are linked by a common identity, common customs, and
collective interests.
Professional relationship or role is the relationship between a psychologist
and a client which involves the delivery of a psychological service.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
9
Psychological service means any service provided by a psychologist to a
client including but not limited to professional activities, psychological
activities, professional practice, teaching, supervision, research practice,
professional services, and psychological procedures.
Psychologist means any Member irrespective of his or her psychologist
registration status.
Society means The Australian Psychological Society Limited.
Interpretation
Definitions
In this Code unless the contrary intention appears:
(a) words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include
the singular;
(b) where any word or phrase is given a defined meaning, any other form
of that word or phrase has a corresponding meaning;
(c) headings are for convenience only and do not affect interpretation of
the Code.
Application of the Code
This Code applies to the conduct of psychologists as defined above.
Membership of the Society, irrespective of a Member’s grade of membership
or registration status, commits Members to comply with the ethical
standards of the Code and the rules and procedures used to enforce them.
Members are reminded that there are legislative requirements that apply to
the use of the professional title, “psychologist”, and that where applicable,
they must abide by such requirements.
Members are also reminded that lack of awareness or misunderstanding
of an ethical standard is not itself a defence to an allegation of unethical
conduct.
10
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
General Principle A: Respect for the rights
and dignity of people and peoples
Psychologists regard people as intrinsically valuable and respect their
rights, including the right to autonomy and justice. Psychologists engage
in conduct which promotes equity and the protection of people’s human
rights, legal rights, and moral rights. They respect the dignity of all people
and peoples.
Explanatory Statement
General
Principle A
Psychologists demonstrate their respect for people by acknowledging
their legal rights and moral rights, their dignity and right to participate in
decisions affecting their lives. They recognise the importance of people’s
privacy and confidentiality, and physical and personal integrity, and
recognise the power they hold over people when practising as psychologists.
They have a high regard for the diversity and uniqueness of people and
their right to linguistically and culturally appropriate services. Psychologists
acknowledge people’s right to be treated fairly without discrimination or
favouritism, and they endeavour to ensure that all people have reasonable
and fair access to psychological services and share in the benefits that the
practice of psychology can offer.
Ethical Standards
A.1.
Justice
A.1.1. Psychologists avoid discriminating unfairly against people on the
basis of age, religion, sexuality, ethnicity, gender, disability, or any
other basis proscribed by law.
A.1.2. Psychologists demonstrate an understanding of the consequences
for people of unfair discrimination and stereotyping related to their
age, religion, sexuality, ethnicity, gender, or disability.
A.1.3.
 sychologists assist their clients to address unfair discrimination or
P
prejudice that is directed against the clients.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
11
A.2.
Respect
A.2.1. In the course of their conduct, psychologists:
(a)  communicate respect for other people through their actions
and language;
(b)  do not behave in a manner that, having regard to the context,
may reasonably be perceived as coercive or demeaning;
(c)  respect the legal rights and moral rights of others; and
(d)  do not denigrate the character of people by engaging in
conduct that demeans them as persons, or defames, or
harasses them.
A.2.2. Psychologists act with due regard for the needs, special
competencies and obligations of their colleagues in psychology and
other professions.
General
Principle A
A.2.3. When psychologists have cause to disagree with a colleague in
psychology or another profession on professional issues they
refrain from making intemperate criticism.
A.2.4. When psychologists in the course of their professional activities are
required to review or comment on the qualifications, competencies
or work of a colleague in psychology or another profession, they do
this in an objective and respectful manner.
A.2.5. Psychologists who review grant or research proposals or material
submitted for publication, respect the confidentiality and
proprietary rights of those who made the submission.
A.3.
Informed consent
A.3.1. Psychologists fully inform clients regarding the psychological
services they intend to provide, unless an explicit exception has
been agreed upon in advance, or it is not reasonably possible to
obtain informed consent.
A.3.2.
12
Psychologists provide information using plain language.
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
A.3.3.
A.3.4.
General
Principle A
Psychologists ensure consent is informed by:
(a) explaining the nature and purpose of the procedures they
intend using;
(b) clarifying the reasonably foreseeable risks, adverse effects,
and possible disadvantages of the procedures they intend
using;
(c) explaining how information will be collected and recorded;
(d) explaining how, where, and for how long, information will be
stored, and who will have access to the stored information;
(e) advising clients that they may participate, may decline to
participate, or may withdraw from methods or procedures
proposed to them;
(f) explaining to clients what the reasonably foreseeable
consequences would be if they decline to participate or
withdraw from the proposed procedures;
(g) clarifying the frequency, expected duration, financial and
administrative basis of any psychological services that will be
provided;
(h) explaining confidentiality and limits to confidentiality (see
standard A.5.);
(i) making clear, where necessary, the conditions under which
the psychological services may be terminated; and
(j) providing any other relevant information.
 sychologists obtain consent from clients to provide a psychological
P
service unless consent is not required because:
(a) rendering the service without consent is permitted by law; or
(b) a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
or other appropriate ethics committee has waived the
requirement in respect of research.
A.3.5. Psychologists obtain and document informed consent from clients
or their legal guardians prior to using psychological procedures that
entail physical contact with clients.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
13
A.3.6. Psychologists who work with clients whose capacity to give consent
is, or may be, impaired or limited, obtain the consent of people
with legal authority to act on behalf of the client, and attempt to
obtain the client’s consent as far as practically possible.
A.3.7.
Psychologists who work with clients whose consent is not required
by law still comply, as far as practically possible, with the processes
described in A.3.1., A.3.2., and A.3.3.
A.4.
Privacy

General
Principle A
Psychologists avoid undue invasion of privacy in the collection of
information. This includes, but is not limited to:
(a) collecting only information relevant to the service being
provided; and
(b) not requiring supervisees or trainees to disclose their personal
information, unless self-disclosure is a normal expectation of
a given training procedure and informed consent has been
obtained from participants prior to training.
A.5.
Confidentiality
A.5.1. Psychologists safeguard the confidentiality of information obtained
during their provision of psychological services. Considering their
legal and organisational requirements, psychologists:
(a) make provisions for maintaining confidentiality in the
collection, recording, accessing, storage, dissemination, and
disposal of information; and
(b) take reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of
information after they leave a specific work setting, or cease
to provide psychological services.
A.5.2. Psychologists disclose confidential information obtained in the
course of their provision of psychological services only under any
one or more of the following circumstances:
(a) with the consent of the relevant client or a person with legal
authority to act on behalf of the client;
(b) where there is a legal obligation to do so;
14
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
(c) if there is an immediate and specified risk of harm to an
identifiable person or persons that can be averted only by
disclosing information; or
*Please note: for psychologists whose work falls under the jurisdiction of the Privacy
Act (1988) (Cth), Section 16A, Item 1 of the Privacy Act states that a Permitted
General Situation provides an exception to the Australian Privacy Principles, and
allows disclosure of client information if:
the entity (psychologist) reasonably believes that the collection, use or
disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious threat to the life, health
or safety of any individual, or to public health or safety.
The threat does not have to be immediate or specified for information to be disclosed.
Situations which meet the criteria for allowable disclosures are listed in Sections
16A and 16B of the Privacy Act.
General
Principle A
(d) when consulting colleagues, or in the course of supervision or
professional training, provided the psychologist:
(i) conceals the identity of clients and associated parties
involved; or
(ii) obtains the client’s consent, and gives prior notice to the
recipients of the information that they are required to
preserve the client’s privacy, and obtains an undertaking
from the recipients of the information that they will
preserve the client’s privacy.
A.5.3. Psychologists inform clients at the outset of the professional
relationship, and as regularly thereafter as is reasonably necessary,
of the:
(a) limits to confidentiality; and
(b) foreseeable uses of the information generated in the course
of the relationship.
A.5.4. When a standard of this Code allows psychologists to disclose
information obtained in the course of the provision of psychological
services, they disclose only that information which is necessary
to achieve the purpose of the disclosure, and then only to people
required to have that information.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
15
A.5.5. Psychologists use information collected about a client for a purpose
other than the primary purpose of collection only:
(a) with the consent of that client;
(b) if the information is de-identified and used in the course of
duly approved research; or
(c) when the use is required or authorised by or under law.
A.6.
Release of information to clients

Psychologists, with consideration of legislative exceptions and their
organisational requirements, do not refuse any reasonable request
from clients, or former clients, to access client information, for
which the psychologists have professional responsibility.
A.7.
Collection of client information from associated parties
General
Principle A
A.7.1. Prior to collecting information regarding a client from an
associated party, psychologists obtain the consent of the client or,
where applicable, a person who is authorised by law to represent
the client.
A.7.2. Psychologists who work with clients whose capacity to give
informed consent is, or may be, impaired or limited, obtain the
informed consent of people with legal authority to act on behalf
of the client, and attempt to obtain the client’s consent as far as
practically possible.
A.7.3.
16
 sychologists who work with clients whose informed consent is
P
not required by law nevertheless attempt to comply, as far as
practically possible, with the processes described in standards
A.7.1., A.7.2., and A.7.4.
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
A.7.4.
 sychologists ensure that a client’s consent for obtaining
P
information from an associated party is informed by:
(a) identifying the sources from which they intend collecting
information;
(b) explaining the nature and purpose of the information they
intend collecting;
(c) stating how the information will be collected;
(d) indicating how, where, and for how long, information will be
stored, and who will have access to the stored information;
(e) advising clients that they may decline the request to collect
information from an associated party, or withdraw such
consent;
(f) explaining to clients what the reasonably foreseeable
consequences would be if they decline to give consent;
(g) explaining the associated party’s right to confidentiality and
limits thereof; and
(h) providing any other relevant information.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
General
Principle A
A.7.5. Prior to collecting information about a client from an associated
party, psychologists obtain the associated party’s consent to collect
information from them by, as appropriate to the circumstances:
(a) providing the associated party with demonstrable evidence
that the client had given consent for the collection of such
information;
(b) explaining the nature and purpose of the information they
intend collecting;
(c) stating how the information will be collected;
(d) indicating how, where, and for how long, information will be
stored, and who will have access to the stored information;
(e) advising them that they may withdraw their consent at any
time;
(f) explaining to them what the reasonably foreseeable
consequences would be if they withdraw their consent;
(g) explaining the associated party’s right to confidentiality and
limits thereof; and
(h) providing any other relevant information.
17
General Principle B: Propriety
Psychologists ensure that they are competent to deliver the psychological
services they provide. They provide psychological services to benefit, and not
to harm. Psychologists seek to protect the interests of the people
and peoples with whom they work. The welfare of clients and the public,
and the standing of the profession, take precedence over a psychologist’s
self-interest.
Explanatory Statement
Psychologists practise within the limits of their competence and know
and understand the legal, professional, ethical and, where applicable,
organisational rules that regulate the psychological services they provide.
They undertake continuing professional development and take steps to
ensure that they remain competent to practise, and strive to be aware
of the possible effect of their own physical and mental health on their
ability to practise competently. Psychologists anticipate the foreseeable
consequences of their professional decisions, provide services that are
beneficial to people and do not harm them. Psychologists take responsibility
for their professional decisions.
Ethical Standards
B.1.
Competence
B.1.1. Psychologists bring and maintain appropriate skills and learning to
their areas of professional practice.
General
Principle B
B.1.2. 
Psychologists only provide psychological services within the
boundaries of their professional competence. This includes, but is
not restricted to:
(a) working within the limits of their education, training,
supervised experience and appropriate professional
experience;
(b) basing their service on the established knowledge of the
discipline and profession of psychology;
(c) adhering to the Code and the Guidelines;
18
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
(d) complying with the law of the jurisdiction in which they
provide psychological services; and
(e) ensuring that their emotional, mental, and physical state does
not impair their ability to provide a competent psychological
service.
B.1.3. To maintain appropriate levels of professional competence,
psychologists seek professional supervision or consultation as
required.
B.1.4. Psychologists continuously monitor their professional functioning.
If they become aware of problems that may impair their ability to
provide competent psychological services, they take appropriate
measures to address the problem by:
(a) obtaining professional advice about whether they should
limit, suspend or terminate the provision of psychological
services;
(b) taking action in accordance with the psychologists’
registration legislation of the jurisdiction in which they
practise, and the Constitution of the Society; and
(c) refraining, if necessary, from undertaking that psychological
service.
Record keeping
B.2.1.
Psychologists make and keep adequate records.
B.2.2.
 sychologists keep records for a minimum of seven years since last
P
client contact unless legal or their organisational requirements
specify otherwise.
General
Principle B
B.2.
B.2.3. In the case of records collected while the client was less than 18
years old, psychologists retain the records at least until the client
attains the age of 25 years.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
19
B.2.4.
 sychologists, with consideration of the legislation and
P
organisational rules to which they are subject, do not refuse
any reasonable request from clients, or former clients, to amend
inaccurate information for which they have professional
responsibility.
B.3.
Professional responsibility 
General
Principle B
Psychologists provide psychological services in a responsible manner.
Having regard to the nature of the psychological services they are
providing, psychologists:
(a) act with the care and skill expected of a competent
psychologist;
(b) take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable
consequences of their conduct;
(c) take reasonable steps to prevent harm occurring as a result
of their conduct;
(d) provide a psychological service only for the period when those
services are necessary to the client;
(e) are personally responsible for the professional decisions
they make;
(f) take reasonable steps to ensure that their services and
products are used appropriately and responsibly;
(g) are aware of, and take steps to establish and maintain proper
professional boundaries with clients and colleagues; and
(h) regularly review the contractual arrangements with
clients and, where circumstances change, make relevant
modifications as necessary with the informed consent of
the client.
B.4. Provision of psychological services at the request of a third party
Psychologists who agree to provide psychological services to an
individual, group of people, system, community or organisation
at the request of a third party, at the outset explain to all
parties concerned:
20
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
B.5.
(a) the nature of the relationship with each of them;
(b) the psychologist’s role (such as, but not limited to, case
manager, consultant, counsellor, expert witness, facilitator,
forensic assessor, supervisor, teacher/educator, therapist);
(c) the probable uses of the information obtained;
(d) the limits to confidentiality; and
(e) the financial arrangements relating to the provision of the
service where relevant.
Provision of psychological services to multiple clients 
Psychologists who agree to provide psychological services to
multiple clients:
(a) explain to each client the limits to confidentiality in advance;
(b) give clients an opportunity to consider the limitations of the
situation;
(c) obtain clients’ explicit acceptance of these limitations; and
(d) ensure as far as possible, that no client is coerced to accept
these limitations.
B.6.
Delegation of professional tasks
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
General
Principle B
Psychologists who delegate tasks to assistants, employees,
junior colleagues or supervisees that involve the provision of
psychological services:
(a) take reasonable steps to ensure that delegates are aware
of the provisions of this Code relevant to the delegated
professional task;
(b) take reasonable steps to ensure that the delegate is not in a
multiple relationship that may impair the delegate’s judgement;
(c) take reasonable steps to ensure that the delegate’s conduct
does not place clients or other parties to the psychological
service at risk of harm, or does not lead to the exploitation of
clients or other parties to the psychological service;
(d) take reasonable steps to ensure that the delegates are
competent to undertake the tasks assigned to them; and
(e) oversee delegates to ensure that they perform tasks
competently.
21
B.7.
Use of interpreters
Psychologists who use interpreters:
(a) take reasonable steps to ensure that the interpreters are
competent to work as interpreters in the relevant context;
(b) take reasonable steps to ensure that the interpreter is not
in a multiple relationship with the client that may impair the
interpreter’s judgement;
(c) take reasonable steps to ensure that the interpreter
will keep confidential the existence and content of the
psychological service;
(d) take reasonable steps to ensure that the interpreter is aware
of any other relevant provisions of this Code; and
(e) obtain informed consent from the client to use the selected
interpreter.
B.8.
Collaborating with others for the benefit of clients
B.8.1. To benefit, enhance and promote the interests of clients, and
subject to standard A.5. (Confidentiality), psychologists cooperate
with other professionals when it is professionally appropriate and
necessary in order to provide effective and efficient psychological
services for their clients.
General
Principle B
B.8.2. To benefit, enhance and promote the interests of clients, and
subject to standard A.5. (Confidentiality), psychologists offer
practical assistance to clients who would like a second opinion.
B.9.
Accepting clients of other professionals
If a person seeks a psychological service from a psychologist whilst
already receiving a similar service from another professional, then
the psychologist will:
(a) consider all the reasonably foreseeable implications of
becoming involved;
(b) take into account the welfare of the person; and
(c) act with caution and sensitivity towards all parties concerned.
22
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
B.10.
Suspension of psychological services
B.10.1. Psychologists make suitable arrangements for other appropriate
professionals to be available to meet the emergency needs of their
clients during periods of the psychologists’ foreseeable absence.
B.10.2. Where necessary and with the client’s consent, a psychologist
makes specific arrangements for other appropriate professionals
to consult with the client during periods of the psychologist’s
foreseeable absence.
B.11.
Termination of psychological services
B.11.1. Psychologists terminate their psychological services with a client,
if it is reasonably clear that the client is not benefiting from
their services.
B.11.2. When psychologists terminate a professional relationship with a
client, they shall have due regard for the psychological processes
inherent in the services being provided, and the psychological
wellbeing of the client.
B.11.3. Psychologists make reasonable arrangements for the continuity
of service provision when they are no longer able to deliver the
psychological service.
General
Principle B
B.11.4. Psychologists make reasonable arrangements for the continuity of
service provision for clients whose financial position does not allow
them to continue with the psychological service.
B.11.5. When confronted with evidence of a problem or a situation with
which they are not competent to deal, or when a client is not
benefiting from their psychological services, psychologists:
(a) provide clients with an explanation of the need for the
termination;
(b) take reasonable steps to safeguard the client’s ongoing
welfare; and
(c) offer to help the client locate alternative sources of assistance.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
23
B.11.6. Psychologists whose employment, health or other factors
necessitate early termination of relationships with clients:
(a) provide clients with an explanation of the need for the
termination;
(b) take all reasonable steps to safeguard clients’ ongoing
welfare; and
(c) offer to help clients locate alternative sources of assistance.
B.12.
Conflicting demands
B.12.1. Where the demands of an organisation require psychologists to
violate the general principles, values or standards set out in this
Code, psychologists:
(a) clarify the nature of the conflict between the demands and
these principles and standards;
(b) inform all parties of their ethical responsibilities as
psychologists;
(c) seek a constructive resolution of the conflict that upholds the
principles of the Code; and
(d) consult a senior psychologist.
B.12.2. Psychologists who work in a team or other context in which they
do not have sole decision-making authority continue to act in a
way consistent with this Code, and in the event of any conflict of
interest deal with the conflict in a manner set out in B.12.1.
General
Principle B
B.13.
Psychological assessments
B.13.1. Psychologists use established scientific procedures and observe
relevant psychometric standards when they develop and
standardise psychological tests and other assessment techniques.
B.13.2. Psychologists specify the purposes and uses of their assessment
techniques and clearly indicate the limits of the assessment
techniques’ applicability.
24
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
B.13.3. Psychologists ensure that they choose, administer and interpret
assessment procedures appropriately and accurately.
B.13.4. Psychologists use valid procedures and research findings when
scoring and interpreting psychological assessment data.
B.13.5. Psychologists report assessment results appropriately and
accurately in language that the recipient can understand.
B.13.6. Psychologists do not compromise the effective use of psychological
assessment methods or techniques, nor render them open to
misuse, by publishing or otherwise disclosing their contents to
persons unauthorised or unqualified to receive such information.
B.14.
Research
B.14.1. Psychologists comply with codes, statements, guidelines and other
directives developed either jointly or independently by the National
Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian
Research Council, or Universities Australia regarding research with
humans and animals applicable at the time psychologists conduct
their research.
General
Principle B
B.14.2. After research results are published or become publicly available,
psychologists make the data on which their conclusions are based
available to other competent professionals who seek to verify the
substantive claims through reanalysis, provided that:
(a) the data will be used only for the purpose stated in the
approved research proposal; and
(b) the identity of the participants is removed.
B.14.3. Psychologists accurately report the data they have gathered and
the results of their research, and state clearly if any data on which
the publication is based have been published previously.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
25
General Principle C: Integrity
Psychologists recognise that their knowledge of the discipline of psychology,
their professional standing, and the information they gather place them in
a position of power and trust. They exercise their power appropriately and
honour this position of trust. Psychologists keep faith with the nature and
intentions of their professional relationships. Psychologists act with probity
and honesty in their conduct.
Explanatory Statement
Psychologists recognise that their position of trust requires them to be
honest and objective in their professional dealings. They are committed
to the best interests of their clients, the profession and their colleagues.
Psychologists are aware of their own biases, limits to their objectivity, and
the importance of maintaining proper boundaries with clients. They identify
and avoid potential conflicts of interest. They refrain from exploiting clients
and associated parties.
Ethical Standards
C.1.
Reputable behaviour
C.1.1.
 sychologists avoid engaging in disreputable conduct that reflects
P
on their ability to practise as a psychologist.
C.1.2. Psychologists avoid engaging in disreputable conduct that reflects
negatively on the profession or discipline of psychology.
C.2.
Communication
C.2.1. Psychologists communicate honestly in the context of their
psychological work.
General
Principle C
C.2.2. Psychologists take reasonable steps to correct any
misrepresentation made by them or about them in their
professional capacity within a reasonable time after becoming
aware of the misrepresentation.
26
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
C.2.3. Statements made by psychologists in announcing or advertising the
availability of psychological services, products, or publications, must
not contain:
(a) any statement which is false, fraudulent, misleading or
deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive;
(b) testimonials or endorsements that are solicited in exchange
for remuneration or have the potential to exploit clients;
*Please note: Section 133 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act
2009 (Qld) states that ‘a person must not advertise a regulated health service, or a
business that provides a regulated health service, in a way that —
…
(c) uses testimonials or purported testimonials about the service or business;
…
(c) any statement claiming or implying superiority for the
psychologist over any or all other psychologists;
(d) any statement intended or likely to create false or unjustified
expectations of favourable results;
(e) any statement intended or likely to appeal to a client’s fears,
anxieties or emotions concerning the possible results of
failure to obtain the offered services;
(f) any claim unjustifiably stating or implying that the
psychologist uses exclusive or superior apparatus, methods or
materials; and
(g) any statement which is vulgar, sensational or otherwise
such as would bring, or tend to bring, the psychologist or the
profession of psychology into disrepute.
C.2.4. When announcing or advertising the availability of psychological
services or at any time when representing themselves as a
psychologist, psychologists use accurate postnominals, including
the postnominals used to represent their grade of membership
with the Society.
General
Principle C
C.2.5.
 sychologists take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions
P
held by a client about the psychologist’s professional competencies.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
27
C.3.
Conflict of interest
C.3.1. Psychologists refrain from engaging in multiple relationships
that may:
(a) impair their competence, effectiveness, objectivity, or ability
to render a psychological service;
(b) harm clients or other parties to a psychological service; or
(c) lead to the exploitation of clients or other parties to a
psychological service.
C.3.2.
 sychologists who are at risk of violating standard C.3.1., consult
P
with a senior psychologist to attempt to find an appropriate
resolution that is in the best interests of the parties to the
psychological service.
C.3.3. When entering into a multiple relationship is unavoidable due to
over-riding ethical considerations, organisational requirements, or
by law, psychologists at the outset of the professional relationship,
and thereafter when it is reasonably necessary, adhere to the
provisions of standard A.3. (Informed consent).
C.3.4. Psychologists declare to clients any vested interests they have in the
psychological services they deliver, including all relevant funding,
licensing and royalty interests.
Non-exploitation
C.4.1.
Psychologists do not exploit people with whom they have or had a
professional relationship.
C.4.2.
 sychologists do not exploit their relationships with their
P
assistants, employees, colleagues or supervisees.
General
Principle C
C.4.
28
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
C.4.3.
Psychologists:
(a) do not engage in sexual activity with a client or anybody who
is closely related to one of their clients;
(b) do not engage in sexual activity with a former client, or
anybody who is closely related to one of their former
clients, within two years after terminating the professional
relationship with the former client;
(c) who wish to engage in sexual activity with former clients after
a period of two years from the termination of the service,
first explore with a senior psychologist the possibility that the
former client may be vulnerable and at risk of exploitation,
and encourage the former client to seek independent
counselling on the matter; and
(d) do not accept as a client a person with whom they have
engaged in sexual activity.
C.5.
Authorship
C.5.1.
 sychologists discuss authorship with research collaborators,
P
research assistants and students as early as feasible and through
the research and publication process as is necessary.
C.5.2.
Psychologists assign authorship in a manner that reflects the work
performed and that the contribution made is a fair reflection of
the work people have actually performed or of what they have
contributed.
C.5.3.
 sychologists usually list the student as principal author on any
P
multiple-authored article that is substantially based on the
student’s dissertation or thesis.
C.5.4. Psychologists obtain the consent of people before identifying them
as contributors to the published or presented material.
Financial arrangements
C.6.1.
Psychologists are honest in their financial dealings.
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
General
Principle C
C.6.
Code of Ethics
29
C.6.2.
 sychologists make proper financial arrangements with clients and,
P
where relevant, third party payers. They:
(a) make advance financial arrangements that safeguard the best
interests of, and are clearly understood by, all parties to the
psychological service; and
(b) avoid financial arrangements which may adversely influence
the psychological services provided, whether at the time of
provision of those services or subsequently.
C.6.3. Psychologists do not receive any remuneration, or give any
remuneration for referring clients to, or accepting referrals from,
other professionals for professional services.
C.7.
Ethics investigations and concerns
C.7.1. Psychologists cooperate with ethics investigations and proceedings
instituted by the Society as well as statutory bodies that are
charged by legislation with the responsibility to investigate
complaints against psychologists.
C.7.2.
General
Principle C
C.7.3.
30
 sychologists who reasonably suspect that another psychologist
P
is acting in a manner inconsistent with the ethical principles and
standards presented in this Code:
(a) where appropriate, draw the attention of the psychologist
whose conduct is in question directly, or indirectly through
a senior psychologist, to the actions that are thought to be
in breach of the Code and cite the section of the Code which
may have been breached;
(b) encourage people directly affected by such behaviour to
report the conduct to a relevant regulatory body or the Ethics
Committee of the Society; or
(c) report the conduct to a relevant regulatory body or the Ethics
Committee of the Society.
 sychologists do not lodge, or endorse the lodging, of trivial,
P
vexatious or unsubstantiated ethical complaints against
colleagues.
Code of Ethics
www.psychology.org.au
Appendix
Appendix
Current Ethical Guidelines (as at April 2018)
Ethical guidelines for the provision of psychological services for, and the conduct of
psychological research with, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples – revised
August 2015
Ethical guidelines for the use of therapeutic aversive procedures – revised August 2011
Ethical guidelines on confidentiality – revised December 2015
Ethical guidelines on providing psychological services in response to disasters – revised
November 2014
Ethical guidelines regarding financial dealings and fair trading – revised June 2012
Ethical guidelines for psychological practice in forensic contexts – May 2013
Ethical guidelines for working with people when there is a risk of serious harm to others –
revised November 2013
Ethical guidelines on the teaching and use of hypnosis, and related practices – revised
May 2016
Ethical guidelines for psychological practice with clients with an intellectual disability
– September 2016
Ethical guidelines for providing psychological services and products using the internet and
telecommunications technologies – revised February 2011
Ethical guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients –
revised February 2010
Ethical guidelines for psychological practice with men and boys – June 2017
Ethical guidelines for psychological services involving multiple clients – revised
September 2014
Ethical guidelines for working with older adults – revised September 2014
Ethical guidelines for psychological practice with clients with previously unreported
traumatic memories – revised March 2010
Ethical guidelines on providing pro bono or voluntary psychological services –
revised November 2014
Ethical guidelines for managing professional boundaries and multiple relationships –
revised March 2016
Ethical guidelines on the prohibition of sexual activity with clients – revised February 2017
Ethical guidelines for psychological assessment and the use of psychological tests –
revised February 2018
Ethical guidelines relating to procedures/assessments that involve psychologist-client
physical contact – revised October 2016
Ethical guidelines on record keeping – revised May 2011
Ethical guidelines on reporting abuse and neglect, and criminal activity – revised June 2010
Ethical guidelines for psychological practice in rural and remote settings – revised March 2016
Ethical guidelines on working with sex and/or gender diverse clients – May 2013
Ethical guidelines relating clients at risk of suicide – revised May 2014
Ethical guidelines on supervision – revised February 2013
Ethical guidelines for psychological practice with women and girls – revised June 2012
Ethical guidelines for working with young people – May 2009
© The Australian Psychological Society Limited
Code of Ethics
31
PSY4041 | Psychological Testing and Ethics
Module 3 – Ethics Assignment
Criteria
Description
Weight
PART A CASE SCENARIO- 1000 word limit
Ethical problems
and breaches
●
Accurately identify the ethical problems inherent in the case study.
○ Logically and correctly explains which first-level ethical principles (DEPHOGS) have been breached.
○ Provide a thorough and compelling account of which specific ethical standards from the APS Code of Ethics have been
breached.
○ Extracts and integrates key details from the case study to support arguments made.
10%
Ethical/mixed
dilemmas and
ethical traps
●
Demonstrates a thoughtful analysis of the possible motives (justifications) of the psychologist involved.
○ Insightfully outlines the nature of any ethical or mixed dilemmas in the case study
○ Logically explains the ethical trap possibilities facing the psychologist.
○ Extracts and reports key details from the case study to support arguments made.
15%
Ethical
evaluation
●
Synthesises key points discussed previously to provide compelling arguments for why the psychologist’s behaviour in the case study
is or is not ethically justifiable.
○ Makes clear reference to the APS Code of Ethics to support conclusions.
15%
Ethical decision
making
●
Prepare a comprehensive proposal for how a a psychologist facing a similar situation would implement the 7 steps of the Ethical
Decision Making Process to make different choices and act ethically:
○ Clearly identify the event from the case study that another psychologist acting ethically would have started the Ethical
Decision Making Process.
○ Describe and action each of the steps of the Ethical Decision Making Process by describing explicitly what another
psychologist would propose at each of the steps.
○ Clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution is consistent with the APS Code of Ethics.
15%
PSY4041 | Psychological Testing and Ethics
Criteria
Description
Weight
PART B REFLECTION – 500 word limit
Theoretical
perspective OR
Ethical trap
●
Demonstrate a complete and accurate understanding of the theoretical perspective OR ethical trap that you most strongly identify
with.
○ Integrates an original personal example to support your answer, including what specific behaviour or reaction have you
observed in yourself that lead you to your conclusions.
○ Clearly and accurately defines key concepts/theories related to the chosen theoretical perspective OR ethical trap from the
learning materials.
○ Ideas are insightful, logically considered and supported with credible evidence (where appropriate).
○ Demonstrates a high level of self-reflection, interpretation and evaluation.
20%
Future Bias
●
Describe how the theoretical perspective OR ethical trap that you most strongly identify with may interfere with your ability to
adhere to the APS Code of Ethics in the future as a psychologist..
○ Critically applies knowledge of theory and experience to derive compelling insights about potential personal biases in
clinical practice.
○ Illustrates a cycle of learning that shows a development of your understanding of self and the APS Code of Ethics.
○ Integrates an example of a hypothetical scenario that may present unique challenges for you in terms of adherence to
certain standards of the APS Code of Ethics.
○ Demonstrates an understanding of the APS Code of Ethics by appropriately selecting and describing relevant standards.
○ Evaluates blindspots, assumptions and contextual factors to provide sound explanations for why the bias might exist and
what could be done to overcome the bias in the future.
20%
PART A AND B
Written
expression &
style
Total
●
●
●
Written in full prose (i.e., full sentences, paragraph structures, no dot points) with correct spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Presentation is simple and neat with a consistent formatting style for any titles/headings, paragraphing, etc.
Correct use of APA style for in-text citations and the reference list.
5%
100%
Overview
The first written assessment for this unit involves you exploring ethics in two
important ways.
1. Part A – You will apply the APS Code of Ethics to a complex and realistic
ethical scenario.
2. Part B – You will undertake a personal reflection of your personal values and
biases.
You will have lots of opportunities to utilise and expand the skills you have been
developing during module 1. You will also have lots of support for the assignment. In
the first module you will develop the important skill of applying the APS Code of
Ethics to identify and resolve ethical dilemmas in your role as a psychologist by
collaborating in the group wiki activity. We will also walk through the process of
analysing the Dr Lisa ethical dilemma together during Module 1 live class. and apply
the same questions that you will apply to a different case scenario. The ethical
analysis we do in class will match what you need to do in the first half of the Ethics
Assignment. If you get stuck at any point or have any questions your instructor will
also be happy to assist via the ‘Ask the Instructor’ forum, email and during your
classes live office.
Ethics Assignment – Part A Case Study
This first part of the ethics assignment involves a case study. In the materials for the
ethics module you have learnt that psychologists working in Australia need to adhere
to the Australian Psychological Society (APS) Code of Ethics. Although we can
assume that all psychologists aim to adhere to the APS Code of Ethics, some
psychologists unfortunately will make decisions during their clinical practice that
breaches the Code. Breaching the Code can be unintentional and can occur for a
number of reasons such as a lack of knowledge of ethical guidelines, personal
biases, conflict of interest, not receiving adequate supervision or not foreseeing how
a situation might play out.
In this part of the ethics assignment you will apply the APS Code of Ethics to a
complex and realistic ethical scenario.
Task Description
Step 1
Select ONE of the following case studies to write about:
Case study 1: Fatima, a 20 year old Pakistani woman, was struggling with
anxiety over how to balance her current university studies
and her upcoming arranged marriage when she sought
counselling with Dr Mary. Fatima was the first person in her
extended family that was born in Australia and had
commenced a university degree. Over several weeks Fatima
described being torn between her responsibility to fulfil her
traditional obligations to her family and fiancè and her desire
to continue her university studies and become an orthopedic
surgeon. Dr Mary encouraged Fatima to pursue her career
aspirations and praised her academic achievements. Dr Mary
also encouraged Fatima to talk to her family and postpone
the pending wedding until after Fatima could complete her
studies. At each session, Dr Mary continued to encourage
Fatima to pursue her dreams and disconnect from those who
did not support her ambitions. As the weeks went on Fatima
became more and more anxious and distressed.
Case study 2: Matt, a personal trainer and nutritionist, has been receiving
psychological treatment from Dr Diane, a private counselling
psychologist, after Matt’s 10-year marriage ended in divorce.
During therapy Matt expresses a desire to “reinvent” himself
and that he is toying with the idea of opening a “Mind, Body
and Soul” retreat. Dr Diane listens attentively and when he
finishes talking she enthusiastically encourages him to
pursue his business idea. She emphasises how many people
were now so busy with life that they needed time out to
receive a tailored multi-disciplinary physical health, fitness,
dietary, mental health and spiritual assessment and treatment.
A month later, Matt informs Dr Diane that he has taken her
advice and plans to open the retreat. He explains that he
himself will provide the body component, as a qualified
personal trainer and nutritionist, and that he has also made
partnerships with a G.P. for physical health and a spiritual
healer for the spiritual element. However, he has a
partnership vacancy for a psychologist to provide mental
health treatment. Matt proposes that given how he has seen
first-hand what an excellent psychologist Dr Diane is, and
that she has a personal interest in the area, he would like her
to be the final partner in the venture. Dr Diane considered the
proposal and it became more appealing the more Matt spoke
of the venture, as she had always wanted to expand her
private practice. Dr Diane joined the venture the following
month and discontinued treating Matt to avoid “dual-role”
dilemmas.
Case study 3: Johnny, a 16 year old year 11 student, went to the school
psychologist, Dr Young, during a lunch break. When Dr
Young asked Johnny what brought him to her, he explained
he was just feeling tired and wanted a place to rest. On
further questioning Johnny disclosed that his sister had been
diagnosed with leukemia and his parents were often at the
hospital with his sister and he had taken on extra
responsibilities at home, including looking after his two
younger brothers. Following the session, Dr Young went to
see the school principal and asked for a copy of Johnny’s last
two school reports. The school principal reluctantly printed
Dr Young copies of Johnny’s school reports. On reviewing
Johnny’s school report cards, Dr Young noticed that the
older school report described Johnny as a conscientious
student, who was engaged with his teachers and peers and
had obtained As and Bs for all subjects. However, the most
recent school report described Johnny as inattentive and
disruptive in class and his performance had dropped to a bare
pass. Soon after, Dr Young entered the staff lounge and saw
a group of teachers, including Johnny’s teachers, having
lunch. Dr Young took the opportunity to discuss Johnny’s
difficulties that he was currently experiencing at home and
the increased pressure he was under. Dr Young also
explained that it was likely that Johnny’s current home
circumstances were impacting on his ability to maintain his
previously high grades. She asked Johnny’s teachers if they
could take Johnny’s current circumstances into consideration
and provide Johnny with extra support and encouragement.
Step 2
Respond to ALL of the following questions in relation to your chosen case
study and with reference to the relevant ethical literature (as required to
support your points).
1. Accurately identify the ethical problems inherent in the case
study.
o You must make specific reference to the first level principles
(DEPHOGS) and standards from the APS Code of Ethics that
have been breached.
o Extract and integrate key details from the case study to
support arguments made.
2. Demonstrate a thoughtful analysis of the possible motives
(justifications) of the psychologist involved.
o Insightfully outline the nature of any ethical or mixed
dilemmas in the case study. For example, is there a conflict
between ethical standards and/or an ethical value and some
non-ethical consideration? What evidence is there for the
ethical or mixed dilemma identified?
o Logically explain the ethical trap possibilities facing the
psychologist.
o Extract and report report key details from the case study to
support arguments made.
3. Synthesise key points discussed previously to provide compelling
arguments for why the psychologist’s behaviour in the case study
is or is not ethically justifiable.
o Answer with clear references to the APS Code of Ethics to
support conclusions.
4. Prepare a comprehensive proposal for how a psychologist facing
a similar situation would implement the 7 stages of the Ethical
Decision Making Process to make different choices and act
ethically.
o
o
o
Clearly identify the event from the case study that another
psychologist acting ethically would have started the Ethical
Decision Making Process.
Describe and action each of the step of the Ethical Decision
Making Process by describing explicitly what another
psychologist would propose at each of the steps.
Clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution is consistent
with the APS Codes of Ethics.
Note: Good answers to the questions above will include relevant details
from the case study to support all points made.
Summary
In summary, to fulfil the requirements for this assessment you should:
•
•
Pick ONE of the case studies at Step 1.
Answer ALL of the questions at Step 2 in relation to your chosen
case study.
The questions are the criteria against which your assignment will be
assessed.
Ethics Assignment – Part B Reflection
The second part of the ethics assignment involves personal reflection. In the
materials for the ethics module you learnt about a number of theoretical
perspectives on ethics and prevailing ethical traps that people can fall into when
they take a subjective or personal approach to ethical reasoning. Poor ethical
decision making can have especially negative consequences in clinical settings,
where psychologists regularly come into contact with vulnerable members of the
community. The first way psychologists ensure that their ethical reasoning is sound i.e., consistent with universally agreed upon principles – is through diligent adherence
to a set code of conduct. For psychologists working in Australia this is the Australian
Psychological Society (APS) Code of Ethics. The second way psychologists
ensure their behaviour is ethical is through maintaining a constant awareness of how
their personal values and biases interfere with their ability to adhere to the Code.
Building awareness of your values and biases and how they might cloud your
judgement and impact on ethical reasoning will be the focus of the second part of the
ethics assignment.
Task Description
Step 1
As you work through the learning materials for the ethics module reflect
upon ONE of the following:
1. Which theoretical perspective do you most strongly identify with?
2. Which ethical trap do you think you would be most likely to fall
into?
Your answer should demonstrate a complete and accurate understanding of
the perspective / trap you refer to and incorporate references to key concepts.
Be sure to give an original personal example to support your answer,
including specific behaviours or reactions you observed in yourself that lead
you to your conclusion.
Step 2
Ethical dilemmas can be difficult to spot, even when we are in them, because
they arise from a conflict between values or principles that we hold more or
less strongly. Having reflected upon your current thinking, now cast your
mind into the future where you are psychologist applying your psychology
knowledge in a practical setting and answer the following two questions:
•
•
How might the theoretical perspective or ethical trap that you most
strongly identify with interfere with your ability to adhere to the APS
Code of Ethics?
What could you do to overcome the bias in the future.
Again you should be specific here. Be sure to integrate an example of a
hypothetical scenario that you might experience to illustrate how your bias
might be triggered or come into play. Perhaps you see yourself working with
a particular type of client or clients with particular disorders that may
present unique challenges for you in terms of adherence to certain standards
of the APS Code of Ethics given your personal values or biases.
Summary
In summary, to fulfil the requirements for this assessment you should:
•
•
Respond to ONE of the questions at Step 1.
Answer BOTH questions at Step 2.
Your submission should demonstrate an ability to reflect upon potential
conflicts that could arise and, in doing so, recognise when you are in danger
of making a poor ethical decision. This awareness will prompt you to refer
back to the Code so you can identify the correct path.
NOTE: As this is a personal reflection, the experience you describe should be
original to you. Do not use the trolley scenario provided on Introduction to the Ethics
Assignment page as your example. Note that you need not reflect upon a direct
experience with mental illness or a traumatic experimence for this assignment. In
fact it can be better to pick a less personal experience so you can maintain your
objectivity and not get caught up in any powerful emotions that the experience might
evoke. If you do decide to write on something very emotive it is important to
remember that you will be marked only on how well you have met the marking
criteria, not on the nature of your experience nor the depth of personal information
you disclose.
Useful Resources
The module readings and videos contain the relevant information you should draw
from to complete this assessment. In addition, we have digitised an article for you
by MacKay and O’Neill (1992) [PDF] that covers ethical dilemmas in more detail.
This article is not listed as a required reading for the module exam but may provide
added inspiration for your reflection in this assignment. The primary objective of this
assessment is for you to reflect upon the module materials so you are not expected
to research more widely than this, but you may do so if you wish.
Structure
Your assignment should adhere to the same general academic conventions for an
essay as detailed in Kaufmann and Findlay, with a few notable distinctions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A title page and abstract are not required.
It is suggested that questions are converted into short headings e.g., ‘ethical
problems’
As per the word count information provided on the instructions page headings
will be included in the word count.
Full introduction and conclusion sections are not required given the small
word limit, however a few brief contextual statements at the start and end of
the piece will enhance the clarity and cohesion of your work.
The bulk of the words should be used in the main body of the assignment with
relevant content presented to address the topic.
Your response should be well structured and organised in a way that
demonstrates a logical sequence of ideas.
Ensure the theoretical concepts and excerpts from the case study (Part A)
and the personal example (Part B) are integrated throughout the text. For
example, avoid writing one paragraph explaining the concept and then a
separate paragraph describing information from the case study.
Referencing
Acknowledge all sources you have included in your assignment. APA style in-text
citations and a reference list should be used when referencing Moodle materials,
scholarly sources and articles.
When referring to module materials you can cite ‘Schilders (2023)’ and refer to the
module title in your reference list. When referring to specific standards from the APS
Code of Ethics the letter/number and a brief description of the standard must be
included. Examples of how to reference Moodle materials and the Code of Ethics are
below.
Example of how to reference module materials:
Schilders, M. (2023). Introduction to ethics. Monash University.
Example of how to reference the Code of Ethics:
Australian Psychological Society. (2007). Code of ethics. Melbourne, Vic: Author.
The Writing Skills and Introduction to APA Style area of the GDP Campus and
writing guide by Kaufmann and Findlay provide guidance on APA style. Visit the
assignment FAQ section for tips on referencing.
Word Limit
The word limit for this assessment is 1000 words for Part A and 500 words for
Part B.
Ethics & Behavior
ISSN: 1050-8422 (Print) 1532-7019 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20
What Creates the Dilemma in Ethical Dilemmas?
Examples From Psychological Practice
Elise MacKay & Patrick O’Neill
To cite this article: Elise MacKay & Patrick O’Neill (1992) What Creates the Dilemma in Ethical
Dilemmas? Examples From Psychological Practice, Ethics & Behavior, 2:4, 227-244, DOI: 10.1207/
s15327019eb0204_1
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0204_1
Published online: 08 Jan 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3263
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 2(4), 227-244
Copyright @ 1992, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
What Creates the Dilemma in Ethical
Dilemmas? Examples From
Psychological Practice
Elise MacKay
Hants Community Hospital
Patrick O’Neill
Acadia University
Twenty psychologists were interviewed about an ethical dilemma that they had
found to be particularly difficult to resolve. In just under half of the cases the
dilemma involved a perceived conflict of ethical principles (e.g., the welfare of
the consumer vs. the right to privacy). In the other cases, the psychologists were
prevented from following an ethically prescribed course of action by some nonethical consideration such as contractural obligation, legal requirement, or the
demands of an employer. We discuss the implications of these two sorts of
dilemmas for psychological practice and make some suggestions for proactive
approaches to ethical problem solving.
Key words: ethics, problem solving, decision making
Ethical dilemmas are discussed a great deal these days, but there has been
relatively little examination of exactly what an ethical dilemma is. “The
Forum,” a regular feature of this journal, presents vignettes that weave together complex ethical, legal, social, and medical issues. Some of these vignettes are referred to by commentators as perplexing ethical dilemmas,
problems, or conflicts (e.g., Bersoff, 1991; Glantz & Grodin, 1991; Kaufman,
1991). But some commentators consider at least some supposed dilemmas to
be nondilemmas (e.g., “I see no genuinely conflicting obligations”; McCormick, 1992, p. 131), or they consider the apparent ethical component to be
relatively unimportant (e.g., “I do not believe . . . that there is a hierarchy of
Requests for reprints should be sent to Patrick O’Neill, Department of Psychology, Acadia
University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada BOP-1×0.
228
MAcKAY AND O’NEILL
moral virtues that should take precedence over clinical judgment”; Wexler,
1992, p. 139), or they consider the problems to be technical rather than ethical
in nature (e.g., Annas, 1992; Korf, 1992).
What sorts of issues must be present for a problem to be considered a
dilemma and, specifically, an ethical dilemma as opposed to some other sort
of dilemma? This matter is neither simple nor trivial: How one defines an
ethical dilemma may influence efforts to resolve it. It has been pointed out in
this journal, for example, that what one person perceives to be an ethical
problem may, for another, be a practical problem, and for yet another, a
political problem (O’Neill & Hem, 1991).
How should we approach the question of which dilemmas are ethical in
nature? One strategy is definitional and normative: One might use philosophical principles or techniques, or professional codes, to decide what should count
as an ethical dilemma and what should not. Although this strategy has its
merits, there is also much to be learned from exploring practitioners’ own
experiences of what they consider to be ethical dilemmas. In this article, our
strategy is investigative and descriptive rather than normative and prescriptive. Those who offer service to the public, in this case psychologists, from time
to time confront what they consider to be ethical dilemmas.’ In this article,
we explore the way in which psychologists themselves define and deal with
what they consider to be ethical dilemmas.
Interviews were conducted with 10% of all psychologists engaged in providing service to the public in Nova Scotia. There were 200 such psychologists
in the province at the time of our study-Twenty were interviewed.’ There
were 10 male and 10 female participants. Time in the profession (postterminal
degree) ranged from 3 years to 25 years with a median of 15 years.
Respondents were asked in advance to think of an ethical dilemma that they
had found particularly difficult to handle. During the interviews, which lasted
from 1 to 2 hr, respondents described the dilemma, what made it difficult, and
how they dealt with it.
We used a grounded-theory method (Glaser, 1978; Rennie, Phillips, &
Quartaro, 1988), in which the investigators began with one or more questions
‘Patrick O’Neill spent several years on oral examination panels asking candidates for psychologists’ registration: “Tell us about an ethical dilemma you have experienced.” No candidate ever
had trouble coming up with such a dilemma, and by the end of the examination candidates had
usually presented several. All but one of the psychologists we initially approached were able to
present a difficult ethical problem they had faced. The exception was a school psychologist who
said he had never experienced an ethical dilemma in many years of practice. This may have been
his way of declining to participate.
‘Potential participants were drawn from one urban area and one rural area in proximity to
our university. We interviewed those who were available during the month we collected data.
Although this procedure is not random in the strict sense, it is not systematically biased in ways
likely to threaten representativeness.
of interest and then gathered a relatively rich and varied field of data. On
successive passes through the data, we developed theoretical notions about the
questions under study. Our approach also made use of Katz’s (1982) recommendation to focus on negative cases to guide emerging theory.
In-depth interviews were chosen because (a) they permitted us to ask professionals what they thought constitutes an ethical dilemma without imposing
our ideas about dilemmas (e.g., in the form of preselected vignettes) on the
participants, and (b) we could vary our follow-up questions according to the
situation presented by the respondent to learn more about the decisions that
they were required to make, what principles took precedence, and what they
thought they had learned from the experience.
We approached the interview data with the following general questions:
What sorts of problems are defined as ethical dilemmas, and what aspect of
the problems cause them to be defined as ethical (rather than practical, political, etc.)? Do ethical dilemmas, as experienced and reported by practitioners,
involve a conflict of ethical principles? If so, what are those conflicting principles, and which take precedence? Do ethical dilemmas involve a conflict
between an ethical consideration and some other consideration? If so, what
considerations seem to compete with ethical principles, and how is this problem resolved?
DEFINING A DILEMMA AS ETHICAL
The psychologists we interviewed were offering service to the public such as
psychotherapy or assessment, and/or they were working administrators, investigators of ethical misconduct, and other less direct modes of public service.
In most cases, the dilemmas they described involved a particular client. For
example, in one case a psychologist had to decide how frank to be in reporting
the results of a child’s assessment to the parents. The parents had a history
of not cooperating with service agencies, and a straightforward assessment
would have implicated the family in the child’s problem. The psychologist
knew that such frankness might have prompted the family to refuse further
contact with the agency.
In some cases, the dilemma described by the psychologist covered a longer
time period and referred to a problem in working with clients in general. For
example, a psychologist, while assessing children, was often in a position of
reporting results to parents, teachers, and the family physician. The psychologist perceived that in many cases the interests of all parties were not the same
and that in some cases one party or another did not give priority to what was
best for the child.
Some dilemmas involved other professionals or social systems. For example, in one case a psychologist did assessments for a compensation board. The
230
MAcKAY AND O’NEILL
board paid for the assessments, owned the records, and controlled the information. Nevertheless, the psychologist felt a strong obligation to provide information to those assessed to help their own cases for compensation. However,
doing so could have been interpreted as acting against the interest of the
compensation board.
TWO SORTS OF DILEMMAS
One of our principal questions was whether the kernel of a professional psychologist’s ethical dilemma is created by a clash of apparently competing
ethical concerns, or the clash of an ethical principle with some other source
of pressure. We first divided the dilemmas along the following lines. We were
able to classify 9 of the 20 dilemmas as involving an apparent conflict of ethical
values-We refer to these as ethical dilemmas in further discussion. The rest
of the dilemmas involved a conflict between an ethical value and some nonethical consideration-We refer to these as mixed dilemmas in further discussion.
Ethical Dilemmas
In eight of the nine cases involving a perceived conflict of ethical principles,
the obligation to do the best thing for a client or client group constituted one
element of the dilemma. This obligation is a familiar motivation in the ethical
principles of all helping professions. The Hippocratic oath (see Reiser, Dyck,
& Curran, 1977, p. 5) requires physicians to swear to “use treatment to help
the sick according to [their] ability and judgment and never with a view to
injury and wrong-doing.” Principle 6 of the Code of Ethics of the American
Psychological Association (1981) refers to this obligation as protecting or
advancing “the welfare of the consumer.” Principle 2 of the Code of Ethics
of the Canadian Psychological Association (1991) refers to this as “responsible
caring.” It is hardly surprising that helping professionals feel obliged to do
what is in the best interest of the public they serve. What is of more interest
is the fact that this motive can become enmeshed with other ethical principles,
creating a dilemma. The other principles were confidentiality (3 cases), informed consent (3 cases), avoiding dual relationships (4 cases), respect for the
legal rights of others (2 cases), honesty-avoiding misrepresentation (1 case),
and privacy (1 case). The fact that the number of cases in which these principles were involved exceeds nine indicates that some dilemmas involved more
than two different, and apparently inconsistent, ethical obligations.
The complications that can arise when professionalstry to meet their ethical
obligations are illustrated by Case 18. This case began with rumors circulating
about the inappropriateness of treatment of female clients by a therapist employed by a certain clinic. No official complaints about the therapist had been
ETHICAL DILEMMAS
23 1
made by clients to the psychologist, who had administrative responsibility for
the clinic. However, members of the department were told by professionals in
other agencies that former clients of the therapist had complained to them, and
these “rumors” were passed on to the psychologist. He approached the therapist, who was from another professional group, but nothing resulted from the
discussion. Another supervisor was informed and further discussions were
held, but again there was no positive result.
The psychologist and some other staff members at the clinic tried to bring
the matter to light by indirect means. They initiated an evaluation of their
clinic, soliciting views of professionals in all agencies with whom they had
contact. As expected, one of the problems they identified was the “inadequate”
service to women provided by the therapist in question-an apparent euphemism for “sexual advances.” The psychologist confronted the therapist with
this information. The therapist admitted having treated several women inappropriately, but he denied having sexual intercourse with clients. He maintained that he was trying to “comfort them in a physical way.” In the course
of the discussion, the psychologist learned the names of these female ex-clients.
The psychologist felt obliged to report the matter to the therapist’s own
professional organization but found that it had no regulatory power and, in
any event, the therapist was not a member. Further action would have required
the psychologist to contact some or all of the women involved even though
they had made no formal complaint.
The psychologist was tom between respecting the privacy of the therapist’s
former clients and investigating the matter to protect present and future clients
(and safeguard the reputation of the clinic).
This account contains a number of complications that made it difficult for
the psychologist, who was responsible for the clinic’s services, to take effective
action. Some of these complications may be context specific-although even
these aspects illustrate the tangled web in which ethical problems can present
themselves. If there had been a direct complaint from a former or present
client, those responsible for the clinic would have had a prima facie case to
investigate. If the therapist had been a member of a regulated profession, as
was the psychologist, the matter could have been investigated by a regulatory
body. When a direct approach to the therapist did not produce results, clinic
staff decided on the unusual strategy of having their service evaluated by other
agencies. This produced complaints (however guarded) from other professionals and prompted at least some admission from the therapist, although not an
admission serious enough to act on.
Beyond the details that are peculiar to the case, there are more general
issues. The psychologist recognized that the ethical obligation to respect privacy conflicted with the obligation to guard the welfare of consumers. Privacy,
as well as protecting the consumer, also has a historical tradition in the helping
professions. In the Hippocratic oath, for example, physicians were asked to
232
MAcKAY A N D O’NEILL
swear “whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession . . . I will
never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets” (Reiser et al., 1977, p.
5). Privacy is enshrined as a principle in various professional codes such as that
of the American and Canadian Psychological Associations.
In Case 18, none of the former or present clients of the therapist had laid
a complaint, although they had apparently spoken to professionals in other
agencies about the therapist’s behavior. It is probable that at least some other
professionals had urged one or more former clients to lay a complaint without
success, because that is fairly standard procedure. In any event, the psychologist faced a situation in which former clients would have to be contacted, and
would have to speak out, if a complaint was to have any weight. Thus, the
privacy of former clients appeared to be in conflict with protection of the
welfare of present and future clients.
Even the obligation to protect the welfare of clients was not straightforward. Any attempt to involve one or more former clients in a proceeding
against the therapist might have had adverse effects on them. They had not,
after all, chosen to proceed themselves. One might argue that the welfare of
known individuals was being jeopardized for the sake of protecting unknown
(i.e., hypothetical, future) persons. There is an established legal principle that
the utmost care should be taken before inflicting distress and harm on particular persons for the sake of possible benefits to the public at large (Dickens,
1991).
What about current clients? One could argue that they were identifiable
individuals who were at risk because of the possibility of unprofessional conduct by the therapist. One could equally argue the other side of the case:
Contacting present clients in an attempt to substantiate rumors would undermine their confidence in the therapist and harm the therapeutic relationship.
After all, there was no evidence that past behavior was continuing in current
therapy. Confronting the therapist, although it produced no real admission of
wrongdoing, might have been sufficient to protect present clients.
These are factors that the psychologist took into account as he attempted
to amve at the best course of action. In considering his own obligation, he also
noted that there was no legal requirement to report or expose sexual harassment of adults (as there was to report, for instance, suspected child abuse).’
Thus the psychologist was faced with practical complications, conflictingethical obligations, and some risk to himself. Before turning to the way in which
this and other dilemmas in this category were resolved, we present another
example of a conflict of ethical principles.
Case 17 also involved the necessity of interviewing former clients, although
the ethics charge had already been laid and none of the persons interviewed
‘Such a legal obligation can protect someone who, in good faith, acts on the basis of indirect
evidence in an attempt to protect the public.
was considered a potential complainant. The psychologist, acting as investigator of the ethical complaint, was confronted with the problem of engaging in
a possible dual relationship to make sure that the welfare of a consumer was
safeguarded.
In this case, one psychologist fired another psychologist. It was alleged that
the psychologist who took the action had also impeded transfer of clients by the
dismissed psychologist, and this, not the firing per se, formed the basis of the
ethical complaint. As part of the investigation,the investigator had to interview
former clients who made up the caseload of the dismissed psychologist.
In the course of these contacts, the investigator found that one of the
ex-clients was in extreme distress and believed that only her former therapist
could help her. If the investigator assisted the ex-patient to contact the former
therapist, the action might endanger the case under investigation. The investigator might be accused of having prejudged the case against the person who
was the subject of the investigation-the supervisor who had fired the therapist. If the supervisor eventually admitted such impeding of transfer, a logical
defense would be to criticize the work of the discharged therapist. This possible
defense would be undercut if the investigator, in the middle of the inquiry,
referred one of those cases back to the former therapist for treatment.
In Case 17, the apparent welfare of a consumer in need was pitted against
the professional obligation to carry out an unimpeachable investigation. The
investigator described the problem this way:
As the neutral investigator you have to walk down a very thin line
. . . I get a telephone call and it’s one of the clients . . . she broke down
in tears on the phone. . . it was very obvious that she was tremendously
in need of psychological services. I tried to convince her on the phone
to return to the agency that had been providing her with services and she
said she’d never return to that agency as long as she lived because she
was given-she was very abruptly handled by a person who was to pick
up the caseload of the psychologist who had been dismissed. I then
suggested a number of other names of people that she might contact.
Maybe 6 months later, she called me back, saying that she’d now
decided that she definitely needed services-she was desperately in need
of services-she wanted to see a psychologist. She had contacted the
agency that she had contacted before and they refused to take her on.
So, here I was-I’m supposed to be totally neutral-here’s a person
who’s on the phone who is desperately in need of services. She claimed
the only person that she had ever trusted was the psychologist who was
dismissed. And it seemed to me that in many ways that was the best
person to work with her. However, as an investigator I am supposed to
be down the middle-of-the-road neutral and yet there is a person out
there who needs direction and help.
234
MAcKAY AND ONEILL
So at this point I sat down and said to myself, you know, to whom
am I responsible? What am I responsible for?
Resolutions In one of the two cases just described, the psychologist gave
highest priority to privacy, whereas in the other dilemma the psychologist put
the welfare of the consumer first. The difference between these two decisions
seems to be whether or not the potential harm to a consumer was actual or
hypothetical.
In Case 18, the clinic director, after consulting female staff members to get
their point of view, decided not to violate the privacy of former clients. The
director felt that such an uninvited investigation would be equivalent to coercing former clients to make formal complaints. Instead, the director and his
colleagues made it clear to the therapist that he should get help, that he would
probably be investigated, and so forth; he resigned from his position. It was
also made clear to the therapist that any letter of reference he requested would
make mention of the problem.
In Case 17, in the investigator’s own words:
I decided that based upon the code of ethics, in the end I am responsible
to the most bottom-level person in a situation. My primary responsibility
in this particular situation, even if it was going to damage the case, was
to the individual who required services. And at this point it seemed to
me the best person to provide those services was the psychologist who
had been dismissed.
The investigator made the referral. In fact, this action did not prejudice the
case when it was eventually heard, but the investigator could not have been
sure of that at the time.
In other cases reported to us, two psychologists chose to respect confidentiality, even though there was some risk to the welfare of the client, in one case,
and the welfare of others, in the other case. In both cases, the psychologist
judged that the risk of harm, although it existed, was not sufficiently high to
warrant deliberate and direct violation of the confidential therapeutic relationship.
One psychologist became involved in a dual relationship to try to help the
child of friends; the dilemma was created when the welfare of a consumer was
put ahead of a possible conflict of interest. The psychologist found the situation
more and more difficult as it became apparent that the family’s problems were
bound up with those of the child. The final outcome was undesirable; the
psychologist told us that the lesson learned from this experience was how
problematic dual relationships can be.
Another psychologist reported incidental involvement in a dilemma that
put the right to privacy in opposition to the prescription to avoid dual relation-
ships. The psychologist saw an intern on a date with a patient. The psychologist later discussed the matter with the intern, but the intern did not see a
problem because the therapeutic relationship had ended. The psychologist
then reported the matter to the intern’s supervisor for further action.
Two cases were still going on at the time of the interview and involved
general working situations that created ongoing rather than discrete dilemmas.
In one of these cases, a school psychologist had to report to a variety of people
who, in the psychologist’s judgment, did not always put the welfare of the child
first. Thus, welfare of the consumer was perceived to be in conflict with the
need to maintain correct professional relationships. The psychologist could not
resolve this issue, beyond keeping in mind the possible uses that other professionals might make of assessment data.
In the second ongoing case, a psychologist was constantly faced with the
problem of whether to develop aversive procedures to control the behavior of
patients who could not give consent to such procedures. Again, the problem
was not fully resolved, but the psychologist made every effort to introduce and
maintain hierarchical approaches to treatment so that the most aversive interventions were a last resort.
Mixed Dilemmas
In mixed dilemmas, as we define them, the decision maker is pulled in one
direction by ethical considerations, but that direction is blocked by some other
obstacle. The obstacles we found were the legal system (5 cases), employers’
demands (4 cases), interprofession relationships (2 cases), and inadequate
resources (1 case).
Case 16 is an example of a problem in which the psychologist was well
aware of the need to protect the welfare, and the privacy, of persons seeking
psychological service. But the very context of that service, and the employer’s
potential access to records, made ethical practice extremely vulnerable.
In this case, the respondent was head of the psychology department in an
institution that also had an occupational health department that took care of
staff treatment. If there were a problem with mental health, substance abuse,
or even incompetency, the staff person would be referred to the occupational
health department by the staff person’s supervisor. The occupational health
department physician, in such cases, would then refer the employee to the
psychology department. The respondent was concerned about the dual relationship of the internal department in providing services to the institution’s
own staff.
Among the concerns raised by the psychologist during the interview were
the following: Are these employees coming for help of their own free will? Who
is the client-the institution, the referring physician (also a staff member of
the institution), or the person referred for help? If members of the psychology
236
MAcKAY AND ONEILL
department treat such patients, who sees their reports? Can they assume, for
example, that a report sent to the refemng physician in the occupational health
department would not find its way onto the desk of the employee’s supervisor?
All these questions led the psychologist to the conclusion that providing
service to employees in this context was wrong. But he and his department
were faced with an established institutional procedure, with the full weight of
the employer’s power behind it.
In the case just described, the head of the psychology department still had
a decision to make-however difficult that decision might be in the face of
institutional pressure. In other cases, psychologists sometimes lose control of
the information they produce and can only watch helplessly as it is put to uses
other than intended, as in Case 3.
In Case 3, the psychologist had sent an assessment report and summary of
current treatment to the referring medical doctor. The report clearly indicated
that the information was confidential and not for reproduction. Later, the
family court ordered a psychiatric assessment; the family doctor decided to
refer the child to a children’s hospital. Without seeking the psychologist’s
permission, the physician sent the original copy of the psychologist’s report to
the children’s hospital. A doctor at that hospital forwarded the report to a
social service agency in charge of the case, explaining that the assessment was
adequate and the children’s hospital saw no need to duplicate the original
work. The social agency promptly shared the information with the lawyers and
the judge involved in the case.
The psychologist’s report was now in the court record. It had never been
intended for such a purpose. It contained confidential information about persons who had no connection to the court case.
This is one of several cases we found where ethical obligations and the legal
system seemed to collide. This conflict generally had two forms: There was
either a direct legal challenge to confidentiality of information, as in Case 3,
or there was a more indirect challenge to the psychologist through threat of
lawsuit-particularly involving treatment issues.
Resolutions. Cases 16 and 3 are alike in that information gathered for one
purpose was used, or could have been used, for another purpose. The helping
professional is supposed to keep this from happening, according to authorities
from Hippocrates (who speaks of “holy secrets”), to current codes of professional ethics. But in our interviews we discovered that psychologists often have
only limited power over the information they produce.
In Case 16, at the time of the interview, the psychologist was still in a
position to work proactively; the psychologist employed a variety of strategies
to meet the employer’s needs without violating ethical principles. In the long
term, the psychologist was working to create an employee-assistance program
off the premises with control over its own files. The reports would remain
ETHICAL DILEMMAS
237
confidential from the employer, and the off-site location would make it less
apparent that the employee was going for help. In the short term, the psychology department either refused to see employees, using lack of uncoerced
consent as its justification, or put off such referrals with the argument that
hospital clients must come before employees. At the same time, the department
provided a list of outside agencies to whom such employees might be referred.
In acute cases the department agreed to see some employees but kept all
records in the department.
In Case 3, the psychologist had little or no power to safeguard the original
assessment onc…

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order