Evaluating Ethics Codes for Expert Counselors
Summary
This posting seems at the dissimilarities amongst the codes of ethics introduced by 3 experienced counseling businesses The American Counseling Affiliation, The American Affiliation of Christian Counselors and the American Association of Pastoral Counselors. The posting examines the differences in the memberships of the business, the resulting dissimilarities in the organizations’ code of ethics and discusses just one lacking component in each and every code.
Standard Observations on the a few Codes
The codes talked about underneath were being published by the American Counseling Affiliation (ACA, 2005), the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC, 2004), and the American Association of Pastoral Counselors (AAPC, 1993).
The ACA Code of Ethics is revised every single 10 several years and was previous revised in 2005. The code has eight sections: the counseling relationship, confidentiality, expert obligation, relationships with other specialists, evaluations, supervision and education, study, and resolving ethical issues. Counseling Now summarized the Code’s latest changes to consist of: elevated emphasis on multiculturalism making it possible for dual relationships if it consists of likely valuable interactions broadened appropriate use of technological innovation in research, document trying to keep and counseling far more element language on counselor impairment and transfer of consumers and at last, adjustments in numerous phrases but not the indicating as an example “checks” are now referred to as “assessments”. (Highlights of ACA Code of Ethics, 2005)
The AACC code was finalized in 2004 right after 10 many years and 4 provisional codes. This is the longest of the three codes. The Code’s key sections are: applicability of the code, introduction and mission statement, Biblical foundation ideas, ethical benchmarks, and procedural guidelines. The moral expectations area is divided involving the different groups of membership. The AACC Code contains the most substantial part on resolving conflicts and managing of problems.
The AAPC is the shortest of the 3 codes. The code was last revised in 1993 and at this time the procedural segment was divided from the Code of Ethics (Beck, 1997). The Code has seven sections: prologue, skilled procedures, consumer associations, confidentiality, supervisee, university student and worker associations, interprofessional associations and advertising and marketing.
Qualifications of organizations
The ACA, AACC and AAPC, as companies, have various charters and membership.
The ACA is an firm geared towards providing products and services to professional accredited counselors from all backgrounds and planet-sights. For case in point, a member could have a globe-perspective centered in atheism, Buddhism, Islam or Christianity. The ACA can not believe any comparable moral belief or history among the its member.
The AACC membership has a broad element in the definition of counselor and a narrow part in that the customers are Christian. The AACC Code of Ethics encompasses sections relevant to specialist accredited counselors, pastoral counselors, and lay helpers.
The AAPC has the narrowest of memberships. Comprehensive membership in AAPC calls for the member have an M. Div and be ordained by a denominational firm. The denominational corporation does not have to be a Christian denomination. The AAPC Code in the Prologue segment specially states the counselors are also matter to their dominations code of ethics.
Ethical Descriptors Comparison
In evaluating two Christian codes from the American Affiliation of Pastoral Counselors and the Christian Affiliation for Psychological Reports with two secular codes from the American Counseling Association and the American Psychological Affiliation, Beck the makes use of the 23 important moral descriptors. The descriptors are from Williams Index of Moral Code Terminology that was discovered by Austin, Moline, and Williams (1990) as contained in the six codes they examined (Beck, 1997). Desk 1 involves the 23 descriptors, additional terms discovered and cross-references the respective codes sections to each descriptor or phrase.
The ACA Code consists of all of the 23 ethical descriptors reviewed by Beck and most of the further terms. The only area that the ACA Code does not incorporate is the specific care sections involved in the AACA Code linked to material abuse, abortion, divorce, shopper sexual affairs, and homosexual behaviors.
The AACC Code covers all the descriptors except for refusal of remedy, fraud, methods and like the AAPC Code does not contain the extra descriptors associated to the use of technological know-how, consultation and forensic evaluation.
The AAPC Code features the the very least descriptors of the three codes. It does not include things like the descriptors linked to measurement testing, security, reporting colleagues, multicultural shoppers, teams, unique care scenarios, technological know-how, consultation or forensic evaluations.
Even however the codes may perhaps contain sections associated to each descriptor, it does not adhere to that just about every Code offers for equivalent procedure of the descriptors. Two illustrations of descriptors that are managed in a different way are suicide and twin interactions.
Area A.9 of the ACA Code discusses suicide. This section leaves the determination to aid or not guidance assisted suicide up to the counselor and states that the counselor must strive to “empower clientele to training the highest degree of self-perseverance possible”. The AACC Code discusses suicide in segment E1-127. The AACC Code delivers counselors have to refuse to “condone or advocate for lively varieties of euthanasia and assisted suicide”. The AAPC Code does not deal with this matter. A counselor who is a member of the ACA and AACC would be matter to conflicting Codes of Ethics in the area linked to counselor steps in regards to assisted suicide.
The change linked to dual relationships are not as distinct as in suicide, but the language of the a few codes does appear to be to existing of spectrum of advice on dual relationships.
The ACA Code, in 2005, was changed to lessen the restriction on dual relationships. Portion A.5.d of the ACA Code now enables a twin relationship if the romantic relationship is effective to the counseling romantic relationship. The ACA wording would seem suggest an acceptance of dual relationships. Portion ES 1-140 to 1-146 of the AACC Code point out that some twin relationships are unethical. The AACC Code does allow for for an exception but states that is imperative for the counselor to doc the dual romance and to plainly doc the logic for the marriage in the customer notes. The language made use of in the AACC Code seems to be considerably less supportive of twin interactions than the ACA Code. The AAPC Code seems to be the most restrictive in stating in Principle III E. ” We steer clear of dual romantic relationship with customers… which could impair our specialist judgment”. The AAPC Code does not accept a positive dual connection or provide advice on how to identify or manage a favourable dual marriage.
Summary
Hathaway (2001) raises the query of what foundation is presented to assist the ethics code? He goes on to observe that Christian and secular experienced codes are identical on numerous significant factors. He good reasons that this is thanks to the simple fact that all psychological overall health industry experts are qualified in the exact same or similar instruction applications, function in the similar ecosystem and function towards the very same plans. A comparable query is elevated by Freeman, Engels, and Altekruse (2004) when they stated, ” people who follow…behavioral sciences frequently make moral/moral judgments about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain steps, but what is the basis for these judgment? How are they justified?” The one particular factor missing from all 3 styles is the foundation for the moral final decision-making. This leaves the practitioner without the need of a supportive framework to reference in situations that do fall exactly into the norm or the place sections of many codes conflict as noted above. The Tarasoff situation as referenced by Freeman et al. (2004) is a fantastic case in point of this difficulty. The 3 codes need the counselor to manage confidentiality of information similar to the counselee and counseling sessions. But how does the counselor know when a competing component of the code, this sort of as do no hurt, would outweigh another part without a sound understanding of the theoretically underpinnings of the code and/or a defined final decision-generating product.
As the selection generating product is left up to the authors of the codes, these code will be subject to continuous redrafting to fulfill modifying examples of moral concerns that are introduced.
References
American Association of Christian Counselors. (2004). AACC Code of Ethics. Alexandria, Va.
American Affiliation of Pastoral Counselors. (1993). Code of Ethics. Fairfax, Va.
American Counseling Affiliation. (2005). ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, Va.
Austin, K.M., Moline, M.E., & Williams, G.T. (1990). Confronting Malpractice: Authorized and Ethical Dilemmas in Psychotherapy. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Beck, J. (1997). Christian Codes, Are They Greater? Christian Counseling Ethics (pp. 313-325). Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press.
Freeman, S., Engels, D., & Altekruse, M. (2004, April). Foundation for moral standards and codes: The purpose of ethical philosophy and theory in ethics. Counseling and Values, 48, 163-174.
Hathaway, W. (2001). Common Perception Experienced Ethics: A Christian Appraisal. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29, 224-233.
Highlights of ACA Code of Ethics. (2005, Oct). Counseling These days, 1,16-17,63.