ethics 8 final

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


2/22


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).


3/22


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.


4/22


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


5/22


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.


6/22


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


7/22


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


8/22


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,


9/22


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


10/22


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


11/22


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


12/22


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


13/22


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


14/22


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


15/22


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


16/22


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


17/22


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


18/22


proven to be difficult. These ethical codes can be viewed as mere guidelines based on values and

experiences of how psychologists should behave.


19/22


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


20/22


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


21/22


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


22/22


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)

ethics 8 final

Documents