Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This paper will explore the ethical considerations in the given case study by using the ACA Code of Ethics and the ACES Best Practice Guidelines to assess.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 16
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Running head: ACA ETHICS COMPETITION 1 Ethical Dilemmas in Counseling: A Case Study Examination 2017 - 2018 American Counseling Association Ethics Competition Monmouth University – West Long Branch, NJ Master's Students Helene Maliko-Abraham, Madison Lawn, Emily Ramos, and Sunanda Sharma Faculty Representative: Dr. Sarah I. Springer
Abstract This paper analyzes an ethical dilemma that a counseling student encounters regarding her poor professional relationship with her supervisor and her client’s risky behavior. The counseling student’s supervisor recruited a client for her supervisee through her own existing counseling relationship, and then did not provide adequate supervision to the counseling student. The counseling student does not feel her supervisor can be impartial towards her client because her supervisor has an existing counseling relationship with the client’s mother. The client is a minor who, per his mother’s report, is exhibiting suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms. The counseling student, without the permission or knowledge of her client, accesses his social media account to gather more information about him, finds troubling content, and cannot decide how to proceed. The ethical issues were examined through the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics (2014) and the Association for Counseling Education and Supervision best practice guidelines. Relevant code violations were documented, and the Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making was utilized to assess and implement the best course of action.
and does not seek her supervision because she feels Amber’s relationship with Carla has compromised her judgement. Conflicting Factors, Variables, and Dimensions There are multiple conflicting factors within this case study which merit analysis. The quality of the therapeutic alliance with Jeremy, and the supervisory relationship between Amber and Stephanie are problematic and concerning. The foundational principles (autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, justice, fidelity, and veracity) provided a lens through which to identify the conflicting factors, variables, and dimensions of this ethical dilemma. Autonomy Cottone and Tarvydas (2016) define autonomy as, “...a position that respects a client’s (and others’) rights to be free from controlling interference in decision making and choice” (p. 96). Jeremy has a right to autonomy, but because of his legal status as a minor there are limitations to confidentiality which Stephanie should have discussed as a part of informed consent from their first session. Corey and Corey (2016) assert that educating clients about informed consent is an essential component of establishing the therapeutic bond; without it there is a lack of balance, clarity of expectations, and trust. If Stephanie were more transparent with Jeremy, he would know that Stephanie was obligated to disclose information to her supervisor and his mother. When working with clients who are minors, they may divulge risky behaviors that they do not share with their parents, and implore the counselor not to share this information with their parents. Similarly, Jeremy discloses his illicit drug use and stealing to Stephanie and requests that she keep this from Carla. In not disclosing this information, Stephanie may have been
misguided in her beliefs that she did not want to damage the rapport she had begun to build with Jeremy. In this regard, Remley and Herlihy (2016) suggest: Counselors should understand that any time they decide to withhold information from a parent, they assume responsibility for harm caused if that information leads to injuries for the client. Examples of such potentially injurious information include minors disclosing that they are using controlled substances, engaging in sexual activity, breaking laws, or engaging in other risky behavior that their parents do not know about. (p. 268) Stephanie was not successful in protecting Jeremy’s autonomy; she did not explain the limits of confidentiality and she did not review the informed consent with him throughout their sessions. Nonmaleficence According to Cottone and Tarvydas (2016), nonmaleficence is “...refraining from any action that might cause harm, in addition to not intentionally harming others” (p. 98). Stephanie and Amber both violated the principle of nonmaleficence. Stephanie was practicing beyond her scope of competence, as she was not receiving adequate supervision from Amber. Amber initiated the counseling relationship between Jeremy and Stephanie by recruiting through her own clients. Amber was not acting to intentionally cause harm, as her primary motivation was to help Stephanie accrue client hours. However, by doing this Amber did not account for the resulting multiple relationships. Carla is Amber’s personal client and it is stated that her strained relationship with Jeremy has become the focus of her personal counseling. Stephanie does not trust Amber to be unbiased with regard to Jeremy as a result of Amber and Carla’s therapeutic bond. This causes Stephanie to stop herself from seeking guidance and supervision, which leads her to violate Jeremy’s virtual privacy by looking up his Instagram account. If Jeremy were a client who came through
have the ethical right to privacy regarding his internet presence. Stephanie violated this understanding when she sought out his Instagram account outside of their sessions, without his consent. Jeremy also asks Stephanie to keep his drug use and stealing a secret from his mother and this is something she cannot and should not have promised him. Just as counselors are advised to discuss what clients would prefer should they encounter the therapist in public, counselors hold an ethical responsibility to ensure they are agreeing upon social interactions in conjunction with clients’ privacy and preference. Veracity Cottone & Tarvydas (2016) posit, “Counselors should not misrepresent information, withhold the truth, or lie to clients or others legitimately involved in the case” (p. 101). This speaks to the importance of veracity in the counseling relationship. In addition to communicating with honesty, it is imperative that Stephanie communicate with clarity. Stephanie is still early in her clinical training and must be mindful of the consequences of her silence. By withholding information from Amber, she puts herself and Jeremy at risk. If she were to approach Amber with her concerns, in a professional manner, and speak honestly about the facts of this case she would have been more likely to receive instruction on how to proceed. Applying Ethical Guidelines ACA Code of Ethics The ACA Code of Ethics is a unique set of guidelines which outline the ethical obligations, considerations, responsibilities, and expectations of counselors. These ethical codes are meant to be used in tandem with the state laws in which counselors are practicing. Licensed professional counselors such as Amber, as well as counselors-in-training like Stephanie are bound by these guidelines.
Section A.1. Client Welfare Codes A.1.a and A.1.d. state that counselors have the responsibility to protect their clients and acknowledge and utilize a client’s support system where appropriate. In this case study, Jeremy’s dignity was compromised because he was irresponsibly recruited by Amber, and Amber did not protect Jeremy by assuring supervised care through Stephanie. Section A.2. Informed Consent in the Counseling Relationship Codes A.2.a asserts that counselors must fully inform their clients about the counseling process at the beginning of treatment and throughout sessions, when appropriate. Code A.2.d states that when a counselor provides services to an individual who is unable to consent for themselves, they must still obtain assent. Though minors cannot consent, counselors must explain their rights within in the counseling relationship, and explain the legal obligations to their parents or guardians. Stephanie did not successfully explain informed consent and confidentiality limitations to Jeremy. Section A.7 Roles and Relationships at Individual, Group, Institutional, and Societal Levels Code A.7.a. states that counselors must advocate for their own needs and their clients’ needs. Stephanie failed to advocate for herself and Jeremy when she did not confront Amber about the lack of supervision. B.1. Respecting Client Rights Code B.1.d. states that it is a counselor’s responsibility to explain to a client what they are legally and ethically required to disclose. Jeremy was not informed about the legal obligation Stephanie is bound by, which is likely why he asked her to conceal information from his mother. B.2. Exceptions
violated this code by viewing Jeremy’s Instagram account without his consent and she did not discuss this boundary under informed consent. ACES The Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) is an ethical guideline which outlines counseling supervision best practices. As a supervisor, Amber is bound by the ACES best practices guidelines. The supervisory relationship between Amber and Stephanie is a major factor in this case study, so it is vital to review the ACES guidelines which Amber is obligated to enforce. Section 1. Initiating Supervision Codes a.vii., and c.i., state how it is the supervisor’s responsibility to develop and manage the supervisory relationship. They must not only clearly delineate their responsibilities and authority, but they must also engage in ongoing conversations to enhance and encourage a collaborative work alliance between themselves and their supervisee. Amber recruited Jeremy through her personal client, and did not provide any guidelines or guidance to Stephanie about how to proceed. Section 3. Giving Feedback Code a., and c.i., stipulate that a supervisor must provide regular and frequent feedback to help the supervisee learn how to obtain performance feedback through both formal and informal methods from multiple sources. There is no record of feedback between Amber and Stephanie. Amber’s relationship with Carla does not allow her to observe Stephanie’s interactions with Jeremy without introducing bias. Section 4. Conducting Supervision
Codes b.i., b.ii., and b.iii., advise that counselors should provide supervision that is structured, purposeful and goal-oriented in an environment which allows for open communication. This supervision should be provided by addressing client welfare, and the supervisee’s characteristics, needs, developmental level, goals and demands within a supervisory context. Amber did not provide a safe environment for Stephanie to seek supervision, given how Stephanie feels that Amber is negatively prejudiced against Jeremy because of her relationship with Carla. Section 5. The Supervisory Relationship Codes a., b.iv., and b.viii., state how counselors provide supervision from the standpoint that the supervisory relationship is key for a supervisee. Counselors approach supervision with intentionality by addressing supervisee anxiety and by attending to and taking the responsibility for any conflicts that may occur. Amber did not take the necessary steps to foster a supervisory relationship where Stephanie would feel comfortable approaching her with concerns regarding her counseling relationship with Jeremy. Section 7. Ethical Considerations Codes a.iii., a.vi., a.vii., a.ix., c.i., e.ii., assert that the supervisor provides the foundational expectation regarding ethical considerations in the counseling process. The supervisor incorporates ethical guidelines from ACA and ACES. Additionally, the supervisor initiates and guides the supervisee’s ethical decision making throughout the supervisory experience. The supervisor is knowledgeable of ethical violations and works towards reducing their occurrence while at the same time avoiding behavior that may lead to liability. The supervisor understands that client welfare is their paramount responsibility by assigning clients to the supervisee appropriately and providing the supervisee with direct observation, and
situation with her classmates and professor for their input on how to best approach Amber. By doing so, she will receive supervision and consultation from her peers and professor about the case, and she can work through any hesitations which have precluded her from confronting and seeking supervision from Amber in the first place. It could be her opportunity to gain the confidence to advocate for herself and Jeremy, and prevent something like this from happening again. Next, Stephanie should immediately make an appointment to meet with Amber. She should address her concerns about how she does not trust Amber’s judgement to help her with Jeremy and how there has been a lack of supervision as a result. She should also admit to Amber that she viewed Jeremy’s social media account without his knowledge or consent, and found information which counters what he has said in their sessions. They should also discuss the future of their supervisory relationship, talk about their informed consent, and the expectations that they have of one another. Following her conversation with Amber, Stephanie’s biggest priority is Jeremy so she must discuss everything that has transpired with him. She is rightfully concerned about her therapeutic rapport with Jeremy. Schmit, Balkin, Hollenbaugh, and Oliver (2017) state how therapeutic relationship is a cornerstone in therapy, but it is especially true in the therapeutic relationship with minors – there is a correlation between positive outcomes with minors and the quality of the therapeutic bond. If she handles this situation with him well, rather than impede on the rapport they have established it has the potential to strengthen their counseling relationship. Stephanie must communicate openly and honestly with Jeremy about the fact that she violated his privacy by looking up his Instagram account, and that she has seen content which concerns her. Meyers (2014) cautions counselors against asking about a client’s social media
activity, but counselors may recommend viewing a client’s social media accounts (with permission) in a session together to address any concerning posts. She must also bring up the confidentiality limitations and explain that because he is a minor, if she is concerned about his safety and well-being she must disclose certain information to his mother. Carla consented to treatment on Jeremy’s behalf – Remley and Herlihy (2016) assert that minors cannot enter into contracts, even a counseling contract, and therapists will always have a legal obligation to the parents or guardians. Although Jeremy requests Stephanie not to disclose his risky behavior to Carla, she will likely have to do so. Assuming Amber provides guidance, Stephanie could suggest to Jeremy that he invite Carla to come to a session so he may tell her about his behavior directly. Stephanie should then take time to discuss expectations she and Jeremy have of each other going forward. After Stephanie takes these steps she should document everything, continue to work on her supervisory relationship with Amber, and her therapeutic alliance with Jeremy. If Amber does not respond well to this conversation or if Stephanie feels nothing has improved, then she may need to request a new supervisor. By going through these steps she can exhaust all viable options to resolve the conflict, and promote better communication in her relationships with Amber and Jeremy. This course of action passes the three Forster-Miller and Davis (2016) tests of justice, publicity, and universality. The test of justice is meant to evaluate if all associated parties have been treated equally. With this plan, if Stephanie increases transparency regarding the counseling process with Jeremy and she improves her supervisory relationship with Amber it will result in justice being served. The second test, publicity, confirms that one’s actions are appropriate enough to report and, if necessary, could be duplicated by another clinician. If the details of this
References American Counseling Association (2014). ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author. Corey, M.S. & Corey, G. (2016). Becoming a helper. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Cottone, R. R. & Tarvydas, V. (2016). Ethics and decision making in counseling and psychotherapy. New York, NY: Springer Publishing. Forester-Miller, H. & Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s guide to ethical decision making (Rev. ed.). Retrieved from: http://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/ethics/practioner’s- guide-toethical-decision-making.pdf Levitt, D. H. & Moorhead, H.J.H. (2013). Values and ethics in counseling: Real-life ethical decision making. New York, NY: Routledge. Meyers, L. (2014, May 22). A living document of ethical guidance. Retrieved from: http://ct.counseling.org/2014/05/a-living-document-of-ethical-guidance/ Remley, T. P. & Herlihy, B. A. (2016). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling. Boston, MA: Pearson. Schmit, E.L., Balkin, R.S., Hollenbaugh, K.M.H., & Oliver, M. (2017). Examining the relationship between working alliance and therapeutic goal attainment with adolescents in crisis. Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling , 1 , 1-14.
