Post on 05-Apr-2018
transcript
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
1/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 1
Running head: Ethics and Clinical Psychology
Ethics, Ethical issues/dilemmas and Clinical Psychology
Francesca Conliffe
ID#420060752
Lecturer: Mr. Teddy Leon
The University of the West Indies
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
2/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 2
Ethics has always been a fundamental issue in Psychology as a profession; it guides
decisions and actions in all fields, being the core of the profession itself. In order to do justice to
this paper one must first determine what is ethics? Ethics is the general term for attempts to
state or determine what is good, both for the individual and for society as a whole (Banks 2009,
p.15).
In the context of clinical psychology, it would imply understanding the moral principles
underlying psychological thought and activity. Philosophers have taken different positions in
defining what is good, on how to deal with conflicting priorities of individuals versus the whole,
over the universality of ethical procedures versus situation ethics in which what is right
depends upon the circumstances rather than on some general law, and over whether goodness is
determined by the results of the action or the means by which results are achieved (Cohen,
2006). Clinical psychologists, whether they work in a hospital, psychiatric hospital or private
practice encounter a multitude of situations or ethical dilemmas in which they must make
choices, which can be judged, after the fact, as ethical or unethical. Thus, the study of ethics
enhances ones understanding and enables an appreciation of the complexities of acts that involve
ethical issues and dilemmas. An ethical dilemma therefore involves the choice between two
apparently correct, and equally appealing decisions (Siegel, 2009). For this assignment there
will be an analysis of several ethical issues/dilemmas that clinical psychologists face, along with
the application of the Ethical principles of psychologists and the code of conduct.
When any ethical issue arises, a clinical psychologist should be equipped with a process
by which to make the most ethical decision possible. A common characteristic of professions is
the development of a code of ethics that emphasizes devotion to fundamental values, such as
service to the public and concern for the welfare of those the profession serves (Bersoff, 2003).
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
3/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 3
The American Psychological Association (2002) ethical code features two distinct
sections: General principles and Ethical Standards. Each of these sections steers psychologists
toward ethical behaviour in a different way. According to Compas & Gotlib (2002), the
profession of clinical psychology is based on a set of ethical principles which are based on a set
of underlying virtues or metaprinciples. These are used as a guide for psychologists to aid them
with their ethical decision making and judgement that goes beyond looking for a solution to a
dilemma within the codes itself. In contrast the Ethical standards include enforceable rules of
conduct, which are written broadly enough to cover the great range of activity in which
psychologists engage (Compas & Gotlib, 2002). According to Ross (1998), beneficence means
that there are other beings in the world whose conditions one can make better and
nonmaleficence basically asserts an obligation not to inflict harm on others. This definition,
which is known as Aspirational Principle A, was violated within the first scenario, as the
psychologist sent copies of his clients files to a collection agency because the client refused to
pay this debt. Cohen (1979) states, the most frequent legal complaint against psychologists
involves fee disputes and included in this category were allegations of harassment by collection
agencies retained by psychologists and as a result these individuals may obtain a lawyer, thus a
suit can be brought against the therapists (p.10). By involving a collection agency and revealing
personal information about ones client, a psychologist would have breached ethical standard
4.01and 4.05a under the section four entitled privacy and confidentiality. According to ethical
standard 4.01 (as cited in APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.7), psychologists have a primary
obligation and take reasonable precautions to protect confidential information obtained through
or stored in any medium, recognizing that the extent and limits of confidentiality may be
regulated by law or established by institutional rules or professional or scientific relationship.
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
4/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 4
Confidentiality has always been the most frequently described dilemmas. According to Koocher
and Spiegel (1998), confidentiality has long been regarded as a cornerstone of the helping
relationship andhave been a primary obligation of psychologists(p.115). It implies an
explicit contract or promise not to reveal anything about a client, except under circumstances
agreed by both source and subject (Koocher and Spiegel 1985, p.57). When there is an
affirmation of privacy and confidentiality, clients feel a sense of security and are more willing to
disclose aspects of themselves that they are unable to address in the context of other relationships
out of fear that the information obtained might be misused. For example in the Tarasoff (1976)
case, the California Supreme Court found a duty for a psychologist to warn an intended murder
victim and permitted recovery from the psychologist for the wrongful death of the victim
(Eberlein, 1980). Hence there are limits to confidentiality and it is quite evident that non
payment of an account is not a justified situation to reveal vital information on a client, as there
was no imminent danger to the client or others in respect to this scenario. Further violating
ethical code 6.02, as it states, psychologists maintain confidentiality in creating, storing,
accessing, transferring and disposing of records under their control, whether these are written,
automated or in any other medium (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.9).
According to principle B (as cited in APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.3), psychologists
establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They are aware of their
professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which
they work. Psychologists need to be aware that releasing a name to a collection agency may
cause both physical and psychological harm to a client. For example in cases where there is
marital and family conflict significant others may be unaware that the individual was seeing a
psychologists and because of the aggressive attempts of the collection agency to obtain payment
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
5/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 5
of the debt family/friends may become aware of the use of psychological services, resulting in
serious consequences for the client (Faustman, 1982). According to ethical standard 3.04 (as
cited in APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.6) psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming
their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients and
others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable .
While trust is particularly vital to all human relationships, it is especially important to a client-
counsellor relationship and this can be gained when a psychologists protect client confidentiality
and use accurate informed consent procedures (Knapp & Vandecreek, 2004).
Ethical standard 6.04e (as cited in, APA Ethics Code, p. 9), was breached as the
psychologist did not inform the client that he was about to involve a collection agency in respect
to her delinquent account, therefore not providing the client with an opportunity to make
payment arrangements and according to this code if recipient of services does not pay for
services as agreed and if psychologists intend to use collection agencies or legal measures to
collects fees, psychologists first must inform the person that such measures will be taken and
provide that person an opportunity to make prompt payment.
According to ethical standards 3.10a , When a psychologists conduct or provide
assessment, therapy, counselling, or consulting services in person or via electronic transmission
or other forms of communication, they obtain the informed consent of the individual or
individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons except
when conducting such activities without consent is mandated by law or governmental regulation
or as otherwise provided in this Ethics Code (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.6). Hence,
psychologists should either verbally inform or obtain written consent (or both), in respect to the
limitation of confidentiality and should not release confidential information if this is not done.
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
6/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 6
According to principle E (as cited in APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.4), psychologists
respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individual privacy, confidentiality
and self determination.As the psychologist failed to seek permission to release his/her clients
files and was only interested in recovering the account, they violated principle E, as well as
section 4.05a of the ethics code which states, psychologists may disclose confidential
information with the appropriate consent of the organizational client, the individual
client/patient, or another person on behalf of the client/patient unless prohibited by law (p.8).
The psychologist further complicated the situation by accepting an expensive gift from
the client, therefore Principle C, which states Psychologists seek to promote accuracy, honesty
and truthfulness in the science, teaching and practice of psychology, was violated. Based on
the psychologists actions, section 6.04c of the Ethics code, which clearly states Psychologists
do not misrepresent their fees was breached (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.3-9). By acceptance of
this gift, by the second session, after allowing the client to know that delinquent accounts will be
sent to a collection agency the client would be under the impression that there is no need to pay.
This creates the potential for exploitation and distortion of the professional relationship, making
the receiving of gifts from clients an ethical concern. For example, accepting a gift may not be
in the best physical or psychological interest of the client, as gift giving may be in the picture for
individuals who have dependent or borderline personality disorders. Passively doing so may
reinforce patterns of manipulative or self debasing behaviours that are symptomatic of the
problematic levels of functioning (Gerig, 2004). Zur (as cited in Brown & Trangsrud, 2008 )
states, that there are various forms and types of gifts that psychologists receive from clients
which may be categorized as appropriate or inappropriate, in terms of monetary value, timing,
content, frequency and intent of the giver. Clinically appropriate gifts, such as showing of
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
7/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 7
gratitude, can be viewed as boundary crossing and inappropriate gifts, such as suggestions of
indebtedness, are boundary violations. Therefore, it is important for a psychologist to understand
and evaluate the meaning of each gift within the context that it is given. Cappa (2001) states, it is
far easier to refuse a gift, but one must know how and when to accept a gift. From outset the
psychologists should have informed the client, with extreme detail, that failure to pay fees may
result in the release of their name and other relevant information. The best way to avoid the risks
of resorting to bill collection agencies, is to utilize billing strategies that prevent delinquent
payments, such as the requirement of payment at the time of the visit; a method which is
commonly used by dentists and physicians.
Scenario 2
Psychological assessment can be considered as a complex clinical enterprise where the
tools of assessment are used in concert with data from referring providers, such as, clients,
families, schools, courts and other influential sources (Passer & Smith, 2007). Students
involvement with tools of psychological assessment begin most often in the classroom, as they
are exposed to these instruments in the context of a lecture prior to using them in a practicum
situation. Instructors of psychological assessment may be confronted with situations that
illuminate several ethical dilemmas, such as test feedback, and in the case with scenario two,
demonstrating the Rorschach test in the undergraduate Clinical psychology course. Principle A,
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence was violated as well as ethics 3.04, Avoiding Harm, which
states psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students,
supervisees, research participants, organizational clients and others with whom they work, and
to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable (APA Ethics Code, 2002,p.3-6). In
conducting the test the student may produce two contamination responses during the Rorschach
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
8/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 8
administration and possible harm may occur simply through the students own embarrassment in
realizing that the Lecturer has some information that may be viewed as negative. For example,
once a student understands the meaning of the two contamination responses one rendered during
the testing, an individual may feel shamed and exposed in ones relationship with the lecturer
(Yalof & Brabender, 2001). Experiences like these are always a possibility in psychological
assessment; they are of greater consequence when the individual who has been assessed must
work with the lecturer. Principle E, Respect for peoples rights and Dignity, was breached in that
the response of the student was interpreted in front of the class. Therefore section 4.01 of the
ethics code ,which states psychologists have a primary obligation and take reasonable
precautions to protect confidential information obtained through or stored in any medium,
recognizing that the extent and limits of confidentiality may be regulated by law or established
by institutional rules or professional or scientific relationship and section 9.06, Interpreting
Assessment Results, When interpreting assessment results, including automated interpretations,
psychologists take into account the purpose of the assessment as well as the various test factors,
test-taking capabilities and other characteristics of the person being assessed, such as
situational, personal, linguistic, and cultural differences that might affect psychologists
judgements or reduce the accuracy of their interpretations. They indicate any significant
limitations of their interpretations, were breached (APA Ethics Code, 2002,p.4-14). The
psychology lecturer should not have taken the response from her student in respect to the
demonstration of the test, violating Ethical Standard, 7.04, Student Disclosure of Personal
Information, Psychologists do not require students or supervisees to disclose personal
information in course or program related activities, either orally or in writing, regarding sexual
history, history of abuse and neglect, psychological treatment and relationships with parents,
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
9/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 9
peers and spouses or significant others except if (1) the program or training facility has clearly
identified this requirement in its admissions and program materials or (2) the information is
necessary to evaluate or obtain assistance for students whose personal problems could
reasonably related activities in a competent manner or posing a threat to the students or others
and 4.07,Use of confidentiality information for Didactic or other Statements, Psychologists do
not disclose in their writings, lectures, or other public media, confidential, personally
identifiable information concerning their clients/patients, students, research participants,
organizational clients, or other recipients of their services that they obtained during the course
of their work, unless (1) they take reasonable steps to disguise the person or organization, (2) the
person or organization has consent in writing or (3) there is legal authorization for doing so
(APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.8-10). Therefore by using her students response as an example for
the Rorschach Inkblot demonstration the identity of the student was known. The Rorschach
Inkblot test is a projective test and a subjects interpretation will have to come from within,
reflecting the projection of inner needs, feelings and ways of viewing the world onto the stimulus
(Pervin, Cervone & John, 2005). Further indicating that this type of assessment should be done
on a one on one basis contravening Principle B, Fidelity and Responsibility and Ethical Standard,
9.02a, Use of Assessments which states, Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or
use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that
are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application
of the techniques (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.10). Informed consent is an important resource for
protecting participants in assessment and should be obtained before a prospective participant is
enrolled in a research or assessment. Not having made the effort to ensure that the terms,
procedures and participant rights had been described, especially when dealing with psychological
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
10/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 10
assessments, the psychology lecturer violated Standard 3.10a, informed consent, When a
psychologists conduct or provide assessment, therapy, counselling, or consulting services in
person or via electronic transmission or other forms of communication, they obtain the informed
consent of the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that
person or persons except when conducting such activities without consent is mandated by law or
governmental regulation or as otherwise provided in this Ethics Code (APA Ethics Code, 2002,
p.6). In the court case Bishop v Shurley (1926) the court ruled that when there is neither
informed consent nor assent by an individual, there is no opportunity for the person to consider
whether to agree to any particular procedure. Therefore by the student being denied the
opportunity to refuse the examination, which given that its psychological and neuropsychological
nature could be quite intrusive (Reynods, Hays & Arredondo, 2001), Principle C, Integrity, was
violated. The psychology lecturer would have lost the students trust because of the assessment
interpretation done in front of the class and the teaching methodology that was used in relation to
the Rorschach Inkblot lecture. As articulated Ethical Standard 9.10, Explaining Assessment
Results was breached by the lecturer and it states, Regardless of whether the scoring, and
interpretation are done by psychologists, by employees or assistants, or by automated or other
outside devices, psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that explanations of results are
given to the individual or designated representative unless the nature of the relationship
precludes provision of an explanation of results(such as in some organizational consulting,
preemployment or security screenings and forensic evaluations) and this fact has been clearly
explained to the person being assessed in advance (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.14).
Psychological assessment is one of the major responsibilities of psychologists and in order for a
psychological assessment to be carried out individuals would need to be a practicing
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
11/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 11
psychologist. Practicing psychologists are adequately trained in the use of projective techniques.
If the psychology lecturer was verse in this area she would have been aware of the type of
information that Rorschach Inkblot Test can provide and being armed with this knowledge
would have avoided possible embarrassment of her student.
Scenario 3
Bartering is one solution to the financial problems faced by some clients in paying for
professional services. The client may offer to provide goods or services in exchange for
psychotherapy or other professional services offered by the psychologist. Within scenario three
the psychologist made an agreement with the fisherman for a payment of 1000 filleted flying
fish, 20 pounds of dolphin and 20 pounds of bill fish for each therapy session, this is an exchange
of goods for services. Bartering for psychological services is extremely problematic in that these
types of services are an ongoing process during which sensitive issues are expressed in the
interaction between psychologists and client. Based on this type of relationship, which should be
based on trust and security, a bartering arrangement can become part of this expression in a
manner that can make it difficult for the psychologists to maintain an objective attitude (Woody,
1998). For example an overly dependent client may go well beyond the bartered service
agreement, in the hope that this effort will be recognized and will be rewarded by receiving the
special attention and reassurance that they feel they deserve. (Gandolfo, 2005) According to
Peterson (as cited in Woody, 1998), this technique exposes psychologists to all of the potential
problems of any nonsexual relationship. Psychologists who barter with clients risk exploitation
of the client by accepting goods and services that may be worth an undetermined amount or
much more than the market value of the therapy (p.174). Bartering arrangements such as the
one this psychologist is engaged in possess ethical risks which further creates a conflict of
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
12/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 12
interest that might compromise the professional services afforded by the client. Violating
Principle B, Fidelity and Responsibility as well as ethics code 3.06, Conflict of Interest, which
states Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific,
professional, legal, financial, or other interest or relationships could reasonably be expected to
(1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as
psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship
exists to harm or exploitation (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.6). If either the psychologist or the
client senses an unfair expectation or demand from the other exploitation will be the result. For
example the magnitude of the payment agreement was great and can be viewed as exploitation of
the fisherman, as the fishing industry can be relatively unreliable and to fulfil this requirement
may be challenging for the fisherman. Therefore Principle C, Integrity, was violated and standard
6.04c which states Psychologists do not misrepresent their fees (APA Ethics Code, 2002,p.3-
9). Principle A, Beneficence and Nonmaleficence was also breached and ethics standard, 6.05,
Barter with clients/patients which states, Barter is the acceptance of goods, services, or other
nonmonetary remuneration from clients/patients in return for psychological services.
Psychologists may barter only if (1) it is not clinically contraindicated and (2) the resulting
arrangement is not exploitative (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.3-9). Within this scenario the
psychologists placed the fishermans job at risk to ensure he/she was paid resulting in
exploitation and conflict of interest. Ebert (as cited in Helbok, 2003), provided a decision
making model based on conflict of interest. He indicated that the new ethical codes do nothing
to alleviate confusion for psychologists, as more emphasis was placed on defining multiple
relationships, and on the multiple relationship itself, rather than on the potential for conflict of
interest. Further suggesting, that not all multiple-role relationships lead to problems; neither are
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
13/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 13
they always unethical, however they have the potential to harm through conflict of interest which
leads to ethical violations. As within this scenario, bartering has been portrayed as unethical, but
sometimes it is not, especially if culture is a determining factor in which the psychologist
practices; socializing with a current or former client may or may not be unethical, but a dual
relationship in which one teaches a student and socializes with that student may be encouraged.
According to Evert (as cited in Helbok, 2003), it is these gray areas that are troublesome for legal
systems such as the courts and license boards and for psychologists especially.
Scenario 4
Within many academic settings, graduate teaching and research assistants are an integral
part of the learning process. As psychologists and psychologists in training, there is a duty to
attend to the possible ramifications of a relationship between two individuals of unequal power
in an academic setting (Clipson, 2005). The clinical psychology graduate student told her
research supervisor about her fathers Mercedes Benz which he is selling. Armed with this
information the research supervisor got in contact with the students father and purchased the
automobile. Based on this situation Principle C, Integrity, was violated and ethics code 3.06,
Conflict of Interest, which states Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when
personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interest or relationships could
reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing
their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the
professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.6).
Conflicts of interest can be created by one's desire to promote one's own interests or the interests
of others. They can also be created by one's desire to circumventthe interests of others as the
interest within the scenario was the classic car. The research supervisor within this scenario
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
14/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 14
created an ethical dilemma by contacting the students father violating section 3.05a, Multiple
Relationships, A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologists is in a professional role
with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same
time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom
the psychologists has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another
relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the
person (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.6). The issue of multiple relationships between
psychologists and those to whom they owe a professional obligation has received significant
attention within professional literature. These types of relationships may occur anytime a
psychologist interacts professionally with another person in more than one capacity creating a
second set of interest for the psychologist, which can lead to errors in judgment (Oberlander &
Barnertt, 2005). For example a psychologist/ research supervisor may feel exploited by the
student who seeks to use the friendship or social contact with an individual who is close to the
student that the psychologists/research supervisor may know or have been in contact with, to
gain access to information about tests or to receive special consideration on grading (Clipson,
2005). Psychologists who socialize with students or vice versa can receive charges of favoritism
from peers and the role of professionalism that is portrayed by the psychologists is compromised
(Clipson, 2005). Therefore psychologists believe that multiple relationships must either be
approached with caution or avoided altogether. As articulated in Principle B, Fidelity and
Responsibility, psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work.
They are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific
communities in which they work. This principle was violated along with Ethical Standard 3.08,
Exploitative Relationships, Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they have
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
15/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 15
supervisory, evaluative, or other authority such as clients/patients, students, supervisees,
research participants and employees (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.6). Exploitation occurred as
the research supervisor possibly seeing a deal in respect to the sale of the classical car, acted on
the information received from the student and bought the car. Students essentially trust their
professors with sensitive or personal information, as they might a counsellor, trusting these
individuals who have authority over them not to use this information to exploit them.
Scenario 5
The importance of advertising is steadily on the increase in modern society. Within
scenario five the clinical psychologists private practice was not thriving and allowed his client
who was an internationally known celebrity to obtain an advertising firm to aid with his clientele.
The ad contained a photo of the psychologist and the celebrity client while making inferences
that the psychologist is the Psychologist of the Stars. Based on this advertisement within the
Sunday paper Principle C, Integrity was breached, as the psychologist is capitalizing on his
relationship with this client in order to boost his clientele, as business is slow. Further violating
Ethical Standard 3.08, Exploitative Relationships, which states, Psychologists do not exploit
persons over whom they have supervisory, evaluative, or other authority such as clients/patients,
students, supervisees, research participants and employees (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.6). The
Ethics Code cautions that some testimonials from former and current patients are forbidden as
risks are involved in asking patients to provide testimonials. For example the individual may
only agree to give a testimonial to avoid displeasing the psychologist, even though they
ordinarily would not want themselves publicly identified as patients. Individuals may also feel
obligated to share information that is not entirely reflective of their experiences (Knapp &
Vandecreek (2008). As within this scenario the celebrity became aware of the psychologists
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
16/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 16
misfortune and possibly felt obligated to assist because of her status providing the advertisement
with a testimonial which stated If he can help me he can help you. By allowing this statement
to be made the psychologist violated, ethical standard 5.02a, Statement by Others, which states,
Psychologists who engage others to create or place public statements that promote their
professional practice, products or activities retain professional responsibility for such
statements (APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.8). He also violated Ethical Standard 5.05,
Testimonials, Psychologists do not solicit testimonials from current therapy clients/patients or
other persons who because of their particular circumstances are vulnerable to undue influence
(APA Ethics Code, 2002, p.8). Therefore psychologists who follow the ethical principles of
fidelity or truthfulness ensure that their public representations are accurate. According to section
5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements, public statements include but are not
limited to paid or unpaid advertising, product endorsements, grant applications, licensing
applications, other credentialing applications, brochures, printed matter, directory listings,
personal resumes or curricula vitae, or comments for use in media such as print or electronic
transmission statements in legal proceedings, lecturers and public oral presentations, and
published materials. Psychologists do not knowingly make public statements that are false,
deceptive or fraudulent concerning their research, practice or other work activities or those of
persons or organizations with which they are affiliated was also violated(APA Ethics Code,
2002, p.8). For example Case 80-4-1 indicated that several psychologists sent the Committee on
Scientific and Professional Ethics and Conduct (CSPEC) an advertising brochure of an APA
member which was being circulated due to concern that it was unprofessional. The brochure
contained flamboyant testimonials regarding the members clinical assessment, made
exaggerated claims not demonstrated by proven findings, created expectations of favorable
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
17/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 17
results, and implied other comparable techniques were inferior. CSPEC asked the psychologist to
stop disseminating the brochure which violated ethics relating to advertising of services
(Continuing Psychology Education, n.d). According to Knapp & Vandecreek (2008), any
advertisement may be permitted as long as it is accurate. A psychologists may, for example, refer
to their practice as the Center for Effective Psychotherapy if, in fact, data indicates that the
service that the individual provides is effective (Knapp & Vandecreek (2008). There are some
instances where psychologists fail to think through the implications of their presentations and
inadvertently mislead potential consumers. Such was the case within this scenario as the
psychologist is referred to as the Psychologists of the Stars, which is plural, although he only
treated one internationally known celebrity. This violated Ethical Standard 5.04, Media
Presentations, When psychologists provide public advice or comment via print, internet or other
electronic transmission, they take precautions to ensure that statements (1) are based on their
professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological
literature and practice; (2) are otherwise consistent with this Ethics Code; and (3) do not
indicate that a professional relationship has been established with the client (APA Ethics
Codem 2002, p.8).
Psychologists striving for ethical behaviour led to the development of a code of conduct.
This code of conduct governs and ensures the rights of the client and clinician as emphasis is
placed on the importance of the individual and providing a competent service. According to
Gladding (2000), Ethical codes seldom answer specific questions. They are general, idealistic
and do not address possible dilemmas. These codes also have limitations such as conflicts
arising between ethical and legal codes. They are unable to address cross cultural issues. Some
issues cannot be resolved by a code of ethics and finally the enforcement of ethical codes has
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
18/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 18
proven to be difficult. These ethical codes can be viewed as mere guidelines based on values and
experiences of how psychologists should behave.
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
19/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 19
References
American Psychological Association. (2002).Ethical Principles of psychologists and code of
Conduct, 57 2-16.
Banks, C. (2008). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice (2ndEd). Sage
Publications, Inc.
Bersoff, D. N. (2003),Ethical Conflicts in Psychology (3rdEd). American Psychological
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
20/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 20
Association.
Brown, C., & Trangsrud, B. H. (2008). Factors associated with acceptance and decline of client
gift giving. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39 (5) 505-511.
Cappa, S. A. (2001). They came bearing gifts: A case study of the manifestation of gift giving in
psychotherapy. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 20 (3), 287-292.
Clipson, R. C. (2005).Misuse of Psychologist Influence, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment
and Trauma, 11 (1-2) 169-203
Cohen, M. (1979). Malpractice:A guide for mental health professionals, Free Press
Cohen, M. (2006). The Essentials of Philosophy and Ethics. A Hodder Arnold
Publication.
Compas, E. B., & Gotlib, H. I. (2002).Introduction to Clinical Psychology science and Practice
(1stEd). McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
Continuing Psychology Education. (n.d). Law and ethics. RetrievedFebruary 14th
, 2010 from
http://www.texcpe.com/cpe/PDF/ca-lawethics.pdf
Eberlein, L. (1980).Legal Duty and Confidentiality. Canadian Psychology/ Psychologie
canadienne, 21 (2), 49-58
Faustman, O. W. (1982). Legal and Ethical Issues in Debt Collection Strategies of Professional
Psychologists. Professional Psychology13( 2), 208-214.
Gandolfo, R. (2005).Bartering. Haworth Press Inc, 11, 1241-248.
Gerig, S. M. (2004),Receiving gifts from clients: Ethical and Therapeutic Issues. Journal of
Mental Health Counseling, 26 (3) 199-210
Gladding, T. S. (2000). Counseling: A comprehensive Profession (4th Ed).
Helbok, C. (2003). The Practice of Psychology in Rural Communities: Potential Ethical
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
21/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 21
Dilemmas. Ethics and Behavior,13 (4) 367-384.
Knapp, S., & Vandecreek, L. (2004).A Principle based Analysis of the 2002 American
Psychological Association Ethics Code. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice,
Training 41 3 247-254.
Knapp, S., & Vandecreek, L. (2008). The Ethics of advertising, billing, and finances in
psychotherapy.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64 (5) 613-625.Koocher, G. P., & Spiegel, P. K. (1998).Ethics in Psychology: Professional standards and cases
(2ndEd). Oxford University Press.
Koocher, G. P., & Spiegel, P. K. (1985).Ethics in Psychology. New York: Random House.
Oberlander, E. S., & Barnett, E. J. (2005).Multiple Relationships between Graduate Assistants
and Students: Ethical Practical Considerations. Ethics & Behavior 15 1 49-63.
Passer, W.M., & Smith, E. R. (2007). Psychology: The Science of Mind and behavvior (3rdEd).
McGraw Hill.
Pollock, M. J (2008).Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice
(6th Ed).Wadsworth Publishing.
Reynolds, R. C., Hays, R. J., & Arredondo, KR. (2001). When Judges, Law, Ethics and Rules of
Practice Collide: A case study of Assent and Disclosure in Assessment of a minor.
Journal of forensic Neuropsychology, 2 (1) 43-54.
Ross, W. D. (1998). The right and the good (Ed). Oxford University Press.
Siegel, J. L. (2009). Introduction to Criminal Justice (12th Ed). Wadsworth Publishing
Woody, H. R. (1998).Bartering for Psychological Services. Professional Psychology: Research
and practice, 29 2 174-178
8/2/2019 Ethics 8 Final
22/22
Ethics and Clinical Psychology 22
Yalof & Brabender, (2001).Ethical Dilemmas in Personality Assessment Courses: Using the
Classroom for In Vivo Training. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77 (2) 203-213.
(Sanders & Keith-Spiegel, 1980)