Running head: COMPARING CODES OF ETHICS 1

Comparing Codes of Ethics

Annabelle Shestak

Walden University
COMPARING CODES OF ETHICS 2

Comparing Codes of Ethics

To be considered ethical, counselors must comply with the ethical codes created by the

associations governing their profession. This ethical conduct is not only morally desirable, but

also legally required of counselors, regardless of practice setting. In the case of Mental Health

Counselors, professional activity is governed by two separate codes of ethics- that of the

American Counseling Association (referred to thereafter as ACA), and the American Mental

Health Counselors Association (referred to thereafter as AMHCA). The following paragraphs

compare and contrast the two codes, identifying differences and similarities, and concluding with

insights gained from such a comparison.

Differences Between ACA and AMHCA Codes

At first glance, the two codes appeared to be very differently written. The AMHCA

(2010) code seemed to be rather concrete, with specific work issues discussed in each section,

while the ACA (2005) code seemed to look at issues rather broadly. This became significant as

both codes standard of informed consent were reviewed. The AMHCA code provided specific

details that should be shared with a client, while the ACA (2005) code did not. However, the

ACA (2005) code did describe informed consent as an ongoing process, and required that

counselors document discussions of informed consent. As a result, this writer has seen

counseling practices combine elements of both standards, providing a disclosure statement in

writing prior to the first session (with a written consent form to be signed by the client for

documentation), reviewing it verbally during the first session, then reviewing elements of it (as

well as treatment choices and alternatives) throughout the relationship, documenting each effort

by the counselor in case notes.

COMPARING CODES OF ETHICS 3

Similarly, the ACA (2005) and AMHCA (2010) codes viewed certain relationship issues

differently. Specifically, the ACA (2005) code suggested avoiding non-professional relationships

with clients unless these benefit the client. In contrast, the AMHCA (2010) discussed suggested

courses of action when the assumption of such roles is unavoidable. This seems more applicable

to situations where counselors work in the communities in which they live, and thus cannot avoid

non-professional interactions with counseling clients. In one such situation, a counselor was a

member of the same church as one of his clients. The church attendance of both preceded the

counseling relationship. When the client came in for his first meeting with the counselor, the

latter explained that these relationships are separate, and that the counseling relationship is

confidential and would not be discussed or disclosed by the counselor during church gatherings.

The counselor also sought out consultation with a mentor to ensure proper separation of these

roles.

Similarities Between ACA and AMHCA Codes

In many instances, these codes offered the same language and similar topics and content.

Two clear examples of this were the standards referring to sexual relationships with clients and

former clients, as well as counseling plans. The first, a paragraph forbidding sexual and romantic

relationships with clients, former clients, and clients families, is a concrete statement forbidding

such relationship with counselors, up to 5 years of the termination of the counseling relationship

(ACA, 2005, AMHCA, 2010). In fact, this form of relationship has resulted in the stripping of

multiple counselors licenses over the years, according to Shallcross (2011). Shallcross (2011)

reported that several sources have identified these relationships as ultimately problematic, and

far more common than expected, often resulting from unmet human needs of the counselor.
COMPARING CODES OF ETHICS 4

The second standard, referring to counseling plans, is a specific

statement on the need to collaboratively formulate, review, and modify

concrete plans to address client challenges (ACA, 2005, AMHCA, 2010). Both ACA

(2005) and AMHCA (2010) codes also suggested that plans should reflect client needs, values,

and beliefs. In my previous work within a psychiatric rehabilitation outreach setting, we were

required to complete goal plans based on Medicaid reimbursement standards. These were a great

example of the application of the counseling plan standard set forth by the ACA (2005) and

AMHCA (2010), since they required direct client contributions: these plans asked for the clients

own words for the stated goal, description of strengths, and potential barriers. These plans also

required quarterly review, and both plan and review had to be signed by the client to allow

billing for services. This meant that we, as providers, had to sit down with clients and talk about

their goals for treatment, consistently asking for their input.

Conclusion

The ethics codes reviewed within the paragraphs above were in many ways similar.

However, the standards set forth by AMHCA (2010) appeared in many instances more concrete,

as well as more realistic than those set forth by the ACA (2005). It would be my assumption that

the AMHCA (2010) code, written by and for practicing mental health professionals, creates far

more reasonable expectations of the counseling practice and offers clear guidance in challenging

situations.
COMPARING CODES OF ETHICS 5

References

American Counseling Association (ACA). (2005). 2005 ACA code of ethics [White Paper].

Retrieved from the ACA website: http://www.counseling.org/Files/FD.ashx?

guid=ab7c1272-71c4-46cf-848c-f98489937dda

American Mental Health Counselors Association (AMHCA). (2010). 2010 AMHCA code of

ethics [White Paper]. Retrieved from the AMHCA website:

https://www.amhca.org/assets/news/AMHCA_Code_of_Ethics_2010_w_pagination.pdf

Shallcross, L. (2011). Do the right thing. Counseling Today. Retrieved from the website:

http://ct.counseling.org/2011/04/do-the-right-thing/