You are on page 1of 2

THE FAMILY Stevens / ETHICS JOURNAL: OF BEING COUNSELING ETHICAL AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / April

2000

v Ethics

The Ethics of Being Ethical


Patricia Stevens University of ColoradoDenver

s professionals, whether we are clinicians, supervisors, or professors, we are regularly asked to make ethical decisions that affect the lives of our clients, our students, and ourselves. Most times, we make those decisions based on the set of standards known as ethical codes of our professional identity organizationfor example, counseling, marriage and family therapy, school counseling, and group counseling. As professionals, we are aware of the critical effect of ethical behavior at every level of the therapeutic process. As clinicians, we engage in behaviors that do no harm to our clients. As supervisors and/or trainers, we model behavior that reflects ethical conduct to our trainees. Or do we? We are often faced with complex issues that intertwine human cost, risk, social justice, and limited resources. As we struggle to juggle these aspects of our professional lives, we may choose to make life easier for ourselves by ignoring some of the basic ethical guidelines. And, because we do not want to view ourselves, or have others view us, as unethical, we develop multiple rationalizations to justify our behavior. Pope and Vasquez (1999) present a list of frequently used rationalizations that can make even the most hurtful and reprehensible behaviors seem ethical (p. 1). A partial list of these is presented below:
Its not unethical as long as you dont talk about ethics. Its not unethical as long as you can name at least five other clinicians (or other professionals) right off the top of your head that do the same thing. Its not unethical as long as youre sure that legal, ethical, and professional standards were made up by people who dont understand the hard realities of psychological practice. Its not unethical as long as its more convenient than doing things another way. Its not unethical as long as no one else finds outor if whoever might find out probably wouldnt care anyway. Its not unethical as long as you are an important person. Authors Note: Comments or questions concerning this column may be sent to the author at University of ColoradoDenver, P.O. Box 173364, Campus Box 106, Denver, CO 80217-3364; e-mail: pstevens@ceo.cudenver.edu.

Its not unethical as long as you are busy. (pp. 1-2)

Although along with Pope and Vasquez, I acknowledge that while these may sound absurd or humorous to some, much too often these and other rationalizations are used in clinical work and in training to excuse harmful and unethical behaviors. Whether clinicians or trainers, we are modeling behaviors that affect those with whom we work. Choosing the path of least resistance either in doing, or observing, unethical behavior has far-reaching consequences for our profession, our personhood, and our society. Each time we make a decision to overlook the ethical standard of practice, no matter how we rationalize the behavior, we are intensely exacerbating the probability of doing harm. As important, we are teaching our clients and our students that there are acceptable alternatives to ethical behavior and that choosing these alternatives does no injury. There are six moral principles that are viewed by many in our field as the cornerstone of ethical guidelines: autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, justice, fidelity, and veracity (Kitchener, 1984; Meara, Schmidt, & Day, 1996). Autonomy refers to the persons freedom to make choices. Nonmaleficence implies that the professional avoids doing harm, either intention or unintentional. Beneficence points to our responsibility of promoting growth and good for others. Justice means fairness or equal treatment of all, and fidelity relates to trust. Professionals are trustworthy and keep their word. Veracity is truthfulness. As mental health professionals, we understand the need to become sensitized to how these principles are integrated into clinical practice. But the requirement of ethical behavior reaches beyond what we do as an individual. As professionals, we may be called on to advocate for clients or students in other areas of our workin agencies, training facilities, supervision, or as community consultants. Using these principles as an underpinning to our conduct provides a beginning framework for action. These principles require that we safeguard clients and students who are working with other professionals who may be engaging in unethical behavior. It is important to realize that unethical behavior applies not only to the gross violation of the codes or the law but also to the many

THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES, Vol. 8 No. 2, April 2000 177-178 2000 Sage Publications, Inc. 177

178

THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / April 2000

subtle nuances of being ethical. Although all of us would agree that sexual intimacy with a client is unethical, such areas as fee scheduling, supervision, consultation, competence, bartering, and dual relationships are more controversial and open to interpretation. Cognizance of whether an action is ethical or unethical necessitates not only knowledge but an awareness, a sense of intuitive consciousness, of whether the behavior is beneficial to clients or students. This ethical awareness requires that professionals sharpen and enhance ethical decision-making skills. There are numerous well-written articles and books in the field on models of ethical decision making, the role of ethical codes in practice, and the law and ethics (Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 1998; Kaplan, 1999). The ethical codes of the American Counseling Association (ACA) and the International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors (IAMFC) provide the professional with guidelines for confronting and reporting ethical violations (IAMFC, Section I (M); ACA, H.2; as cited in Stevens, 1999). Many state licensure laws also provide guidelines for reporting suspected unethical behavior and further impose sanctions on professionals who have knowledge of such actions and do not report. However, being willing to value ethical behavior and carry through with behavior that reflects that value requires more than familiarity with these topics. It requires the strength of character to uphold the spirit of the code as well as the set of enforceable standards and procedures. Character is important in ethical decision making . . . a thorough knowledge of ethical codes and strong decision making skills, although necessary, cannot make up for character deficits (Kaplan, 1999, p. 13). The literature refers to this level of moral decision making as virtue ethics or aspirational ethics (Meara et al., 1996). Professionals who make decisions at this level are concerned not only with the caveat to do no harm but also with the belief that we must do goodthat we must benefit the client or student who has put him or herself in our care. We must emphasize not so much what is permitted, but what is preferred (Jordan & Meara, 1990, p. 112). There is no doubt that this level of moral/ethical functioning is more difficult or that it sometimes comes at a high price for the professional. For example, if employed at an agency or a training facility where unethical practices are taking place, to confront those practices may, at best, create conflict with other professionals and, at worst, cost the person their employment. Professionals who practice virtue ethical decision making may find themselves disenfranchised from a community that has decided either to ignore unethical behavior or to function at the mandatory level of ethical decision making. The person may find him or herself cast in the role of agitator. At this point, the professional is faced with yet another ethical choice: to be part of a system that they believe

to be unethical or to change positionseither their ethical position or their employment. As a community of professionals, we need to actively support, rather than ostracize, those who have the courage to call attention to unethical practices. This support takes professionals who are willing to risk their own well-being for the well-being of those who are in our care. This action requires professionals who firmly believe that they must not only engage in nonmaleficence but also in beneficence. Our actions have impact beyond our own work world. As we train students and work with clients, they move into the world and use the skills and values learned with us. They, in turn, teach those skills and values to an ever-widening circle of people. Given technology today, our impact as an individual has the possibility to have global influence. It takes honesty and courage to challenge unethical behavior in others and wisdom to recognize our own deficiencies in ethical decision making. As a profession, we hold a social responsibility to model and mentor the highest possible level of ethical/moral behavior. We are society. It is incumbent on us to recognize that, as Margaret Mead said (and I take the liberty to paraphrase)only a small group of committed individuals can change the world. The challenge is to be a part of that small group.

REFERENCES
Corey, G., Corey, M., & Callanan, P. (1998). Issues and ethics in the helping professions. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Jordan, A. E., & Meara, N. M. (1990). Ethics and the professional practice of psychologists: The roles of virtues and principles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(2), 107-114. Kaplan, D. (1999). Models of ethical decision making in marriage and family counseling. In P. Stevens (Ed.), Ethical casebook for the practice of marriage and family counseling (pp. 3-17). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Kitchener, K. S. (1984). There is more to ethics than principles. The Counseling Psychologist, 24(1), 92-97. Meara, N. M., Schmidt, L. D., & Day, J. D. (1996). Principles and virtues: A foundation for ethical decisions, policies, and character. The Counseling Psychologist, 24(1), 4-7. Pope, K. S., & Vasquez, M.J.T. (1999, May). On violating the ethical standards. Update, 1-2. Stevens, P. (1999). Ethical casebook for the practice of marriage and family counseling. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Patricia Stevens, Ph.D., is the chair of the International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors (IAMFC) Ethics Committee, president-elect of IAMFC, and the director of the marriage and family training program at the University of ColoradoDenver.

You might also like