Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pn orr I REeoaasrs|jrr
to G.6rs
I
l.l lrdioge qtd ffiy ltEJlpldB portd. p.lt€5co||ol oainlnce to p€tsota
sithod &dffiiq|lon on tho bo* of l!Ge, oge dhridly, 3odo€@mmlc
dqt t &dny. gqNder.h€dlh.ffit 3, .€Igloq nqliord odgin or 3€xud
orbnldlion,
II
I
YIGNETTE: An MFT ws nw$ hnedby a fmily thehpy ageny vh@ .lidts
w@ alloored to clhicias dEougha .entralizedintakeplocedue. As the oDly
Afti@ Americantherapiston sta4 tlis thmpisls 6.1@d v6 comptisedof ,I
of the Afticd Amdi@ couple dd fMilies bas€don the long-standing notion
*nt tlse dienrs wuld fed morc corforteble vith d Afticd Am€risn MFL AT
1 staff metin& dte theepist aised a conern about this ptactice si4ce it had
@dated , miting list ficr tlese climti The theFpist {6 told by the director,
vho *as also the sup€sisor, that clients' ne€ds crne ftst md thar the policy
voutd remain in effecr OdEr staff agr€ed.They seid they would nor seeAfricm
Ameri@n didts becas€ those dients vere b6t *ftd bv e Aflicm Amen@
UstR'sGUrDE
TorHEMMFT CoDroFEfttcs CruPnRI - fuBPRrNotuts
l.l
theepist. The drer2Fjs estded md r'ted a conplai't vith the Srate Civit Rights
Boa.d, rhe state RegulatoryBo&d dd the AAMFT Erhics Commitrec.
COMMENTS (e" e): Id this inst nce, th€ $dapist did not chcck to dctermi.e
COMMENTS: D;cimiqarion takes nmy forms and as nmtzt health soice whedld ft inibating pdent had the right to se€k therapy either for or vith the
pi@iders, MFTS are resFoDsiblefor rccognizing, avoiding, dd duqiflg both bja, chnd. Best practice in thn situatioD would have requircd a review of ille achsl
tant and de facto dis(imination pnctices. In ihis instance,ile inrdtions of agency disrce dedee or other legal document that d€scribedthe custody setdement,dd
staff dd aalministztors crexred 2 situatioo wheie some clents wde wait-listed keeping a file copy of rhat docmenL Eng,ging borl edults in the theepy from
(deprived of servi.et becaue of th€ii race.Urderlying rhis inrent v€re the racist thc outs€t may also hare rcsolved the custody quesnonwhile involving thd i. the
md unfouded ssumpbons that all clidts p.efe( a th€€pst of the sme 6ce md
that client pref€reocefor rhe hce of rhen $depist is th€ most import2lt crire.ion
io predicting .ase outcome. Sone iuisdicdons stipulate the nmber of sessionsa ninor may be seenwithout
prdt l permission (9?icaly only 1 or 2 md possibly only ro d€termioe rhe narure
of rhe ch dt concemq consult you local statutet. Also some iurisdictions pernit
1.2 Monlog€ ond f.mly lherop&ts oblaln opp.opdoia innom€d cons€.rt to minors to provide @Nent for v6y specific pr€s€nting prcbl€ms (e-9, drug abus,
lheropy o. .doled Foc€dures 03 €drly os feosbl€ h fhe fite.qpedk adol€sc€ntpt€cnarcy, s€x abuse).
r€lollonship, ond us6 longuoge tt|at b €osonobt und€lstondoble fo cfienls.
th€ cofiisr* of irfoflmd conseit moy v.ry d€p€n&tg rrpon tfie .l€r$ dtd VIGNETTE (b): A couple ws in rhe secondof six contEctcd sessionsof tr€at-
lredtrr|€nt pbt; ho$€d€r. inbfi€d co.tsent g€n€r.ly n€c€ciEes tfiat the
ment wh€n then rherapist stated that in two we€ks th€y would oeed to sp€od the
cf€ni (o) hos the copo.ity fo con5ent lbl ho3 been od€quoHy inionned ol
e€ekend oo a retret corducred by a col€ague in the ag€ncy.For two we€ks fol
* ificqni Intom|alion conc.mtE treohto.f pocess€s ond poc€drn€6, G
hos b€€i odequol€ly infonhed of pot€nfiol rid6 ord b€nefih of trBoftn€||ts lNing the rcttear coojoi.t s€ssionswould be suspendedto permit them tine to
for whkfi genelllly .€cogn'zed sliqndod3 do not y€f e*t (d) hos ||€dy ord inlegFte nw behavioF iqto th€i! relationsbjp. The couple was sx+rised rd dis'
without undue Infiu€nce elor€3r€d cons€nt qd tel hos prcddod @nset|f m2yed that they v€r€ .ot told of &ese *rangements whd dEy besd t}ldapy.
lhol b oppropftrtely doirfiEnH. wh€n p€Goos, due fo ogp or |'E|rld Their hmily life would not pemit extendedabsencedd they qucstioncd the rime
sbui, or€ hgolly lncopobh ot glvhg irlbrmed consent, rnorriog€.rd fonfy off ftom sessions.They wonder€d vhether the ret!€at and the l4psein r€atment
th€roplsls ob,qh intonned pennidoo from o hgElv outhorLed persorl it se.ved as cover vhile rhen thempisr hmdled some ag6cy €mqg€ncy or vent on
srdr subslihrte cons€nt ls legdy p€rmiliblo. veation ot €kn eqt€r€d drug abus€tream€nt, od they lodged a complaiot.
VIGNETTE (a, e): A di@rced prdt etled a rhqapist for help with a middle COMMENTS (b): In deterdinhg vhether a &etuent wil 6t &en needs,cndts
school aged chnd. In the initi,l session,rhe prenr complained about diffc@t need to know vhat vi happd o€ $e couse of teatrndt th2t m2y sne as a
rrnes in th€ ex spouse'shome ud rhat the chnd rcruned froE visitations actins basis for rei€ctiog th€ trcataeot In this instaDcea chdge in the schedulc p!€
dFre,pecrrulivdd,(drel) fighdng ry rcque\t ro help,oMd th€ home Th; wnted the couple &om attending contracted sessioDs.Had th€y known of the
peent signed a th€npy agreeheot and said the custody dengem€nt permitted chdges, they my have souAht mother th€npist.
either pdent to seekmedical treatrnent for the child. Aft€r a second sessioo,rhe
dlerapist decided to seethe child.lone for severalsessionsto lern dE childt view YIGNETTE (c): After six mon$s of votk vith a fdily in weekly se$ioqs, the
of the relationship between rhe prdts. thenpist conduded dlat the fdily Ms wo6e off * a direct ftsult of teathent.
Atl of the dscssments showeda broad baseddeieriontion in both fmily sffuctse
\then the child told the ex spouse2bout dre therapy sessions,this p6on c,Ied dd p.ocess.This outcome ws disappoioting to the therapist who had invcsrcd io
the &trapist dd asserredthar $e child was not ro be seenatone or eirh fyoqe €xpensiv€ tai.ing for a pomisiog €xperim€nral $camlenq hoping to nurtue a
etse.Th€ ex spolse stzted dnr cusrody v6 nor ioi.t, that the the.apisr had im, struggling pnctice. Since the tteatment lrc applied outside th€ awa.en€ssof the
propaly seenthe chnd withour the proper pdmissioD, ad that a complai't would f.mily mmberE no bention *is dade of it in dl€ iflti,l phzse of therapr The
UsECsGUDEro rHEMMFT CoDEoFEIHrs l.l - 1.6
CH!,*RI - SuBpRNcrPE
therapist decided that termiMtion dd rcfeiral Ms the best option and in accold 1.3 fronioge ond tomry rh€ropists ore awoie of lheit influ€nliol posifons with
vith the method, reve2ledthe ftearment to the famillL On let'ning of the subter req€ct to cf'enfs, ond ftey ovold €$loiling lhe trust ond dependency of 3uch
persons. fhempi-iE lhdeforc. moke ev€ry eftort to ovoid .onddions ond
fuge, the fxmny reie.ted the the.apistt plea for undeGranding and dgrnr stated
m'iliple.dolio.rsltFr wilh dre'tls lhot colld inPoit Prolessionol iudgmenf ot
they fdt like guinea p1gs.They left the final scssior with the erpressed htent of i|('€ose lh€ dd( of €xploilolion. Sudr tdoriodtips indud€, bur or€ not
fin*t€d to. brrdn€ss or dose p€rsord r€britoships with o del* or lfie dienrs
imrn€dote tondh. When lhe dC( of irFoinn€ir or er9biiorion €xlsts due fo
COMMENTS (c): Before impleoemiDg an experimental ftarnent, a derapist condtkrns or muliple roles. lh€rofists toke qPFoPdste precoulions.
nust obtain the clientl hforhed consen! This includcs baking rhe clidt awde
of the eiperlment3lnatue ofrhe trc.t'nenr.rd the potential.isksassociated
s'irh
VIGNETTE: An MFT was c,led by a clie.t vhose Partnerhadbccomcviolent
ruas wcl as informing dre client there may bc unklowr ;sks associatedMdl the
during a quarrel. An emergencr sessionwith the couPl€ was scheduledfor c4.ly
the ncxt moroin8 At the tust meeting, the thenpist nored but did not commcnl a!
\r|lreo traditionll trcxtments de us€d, the code does nor rcquirc thc disclosue of rhe ume rhat dr p,itner was thc postal \lorker vho delivocd the theraPistt dally
risks.Any such disclosing is at the therapist'sdiscretio.. Thenpisrs may choosero
ensee thzt clientsposses th dnt Mn successhnrh@py
Folowing fie nnal sessionin which eachPartner wzs inrervicwcd alone aod con-
may jnvolve dpredictable emotional discomforr md/or relation,l chmges. Cli joindy aod consftucteda sefettplan fo. lhe clenq the thcrapistrcceivedno man
ents cxn be informed that although a fteatment has been shown to be successfirl
for seveGl srdght dr)s. Repeatedcals to the post offi.e yielded no cxplaoation.
with odrers, tlere is .o wry to determine lccuntely beforehmd rhat &e dealmeot
In the secondseslon, thc parmercataloged the mdy vaysin which tbe clie.twas
win be successfulfor drcm.
nept. Thc thought crcssedthe therapist\ mi.d that !h€ Pdtne. h2d considerablc
VIGNETTE (d): A client inti,ted sessionswith an MFT to addJesssymptons hnuence o\cr the ther2prst'sda y life, evcn financial wel being Man rcsunred
of depressionassoci,ted wnh a troubled 30-yed hdiage The cLientand therapist aftcr that session.The therapistspcrt time in the fiird sessjonalonewirh the
vorked together fo. eighr sessionsand cstablisheda close md effecdve working pdtner to dezl with tie maii delivery issue-The Pdtner denied knowi.g a.ydrlng,
ielationshjp. The therapist felt it was rime for the client s spouseto ioin fien in rbe bur ihe foloving day no mait was delivered. Inte. the thenpnt cancelted,I ses-
next session.When th€ client stated they should wit, the therapist r€luctmtly nons ihe next day a.d wit€d on the cturicrt route inlending to rbreaten a formal
agleedbut stipul2ted that the spousewould need to ioin rhem by rhe reoth se$ion compl4iot. Again de p,Itner denied withlolding man de[vdy, a ycling match
^nd
or the therapist would refer the c,se to moiher practitjoner At fie tend, session, e.suedrNeidtr the dient nor the partnershoweduP for the nex! scheddedses
the spouseappearcdard complained bitterly that rhe clienr hld rhreatenedsudde sio', dd dr therap;t hcard nothi.g mEl a cal from thc SrateRegllatory ]loard
udes dE spousesubditted to con'oirt rreatnenr. Fur&ermore, whne the spouse revcaledthat thc dieots had fited a codplaht. Mcanwhne, the postmaster caled
,greed to attcnd sessionsout of fer for dE ctient'swel being, the spousew2svery thc thcrapist to apologize for disrupted ddivcy due to a d,ltuncboning man so!t'
angry at both the cli€nt ud the therapist, and srated rhe interr to complain to
COMMENTS: No ovc.t relationship ms iohed betwceDthe ther2Plsi md dE
CoMMENTS (d): This is d exanple of how effofts ro bring reluctdt pdtners mail carrier (the partner); nonetheless,the thdapist dependedo! the caftic ior an
into the.apy can extort cooperxtion arher than win ir. Chnd.en especiatll.d be importnt sedce. This dependcrcy consdruted 2 potential thlcat to the t.eatmdt
victihs of involutary cooscnt. Therapists hust assesscre6nly rhe motives rhat that shodd have been recognizcd.Moy of rhe therapist: clients vere brm€d by
bring then cLentsto therapy md ensurerhat consentis &eelj, glven our of 2 clerly the thcrapistt failure to rcfer the parmer to anothe. theraPGtas soon.s the
perceivedbenefit froh tbe treatmenL rchtionship\ias knovn.
IJsER's
GUDEro rHEMMFT CoDEoFErHrcs 1 - SuBPsNorus1.1_ 1.6
CHAflTR
caued an "existenti,l crisis." The exdienr re6&d and said tlat life wdnt bad pisr to v€rify deir c12in but decided not to dd let &e mattq drop.
enough to need any help f.om the therapisl
ln the scond sessioqthe couple pressedtle nd therapist to say tlat tleir ftsr
R€aIziDgthe seriousressof rhe ex-client'scondition, tne tldapist solght consul- dr@pist es qrcng, dd dnt dEy should stay togedri The th€rapist refued.
tetion from a colieague.They decided that rhe coneagu€would contact the €x Uule progless ws made,ud they failed to show fo. a rhird sessior Sertral weeks
di€nt, despite th€ confidotiality breech, aod offa fiee co'sulration or hddle my lat€r dr new *€hpist was c,led by a reponer who s6 mrking on e story de'
shorr tqm .ommitment procedures. Meowhilq the thdapist would rcpoft dr rcribing fie couplet ioint suicida A note tefr behind had r€lated hov the couple
affair to the Ethics Comminee md stand up to any consequences. had @ntact€d their fist fterapisr who had reassded the need to diwrce. Th€i!
note also sbted rlEt the nq thenpisr had not supported their desne to redain
COMMENTS: The tndpist failed to dercise good iudgment in becomiqg sexu
togetld. The repoitd 6ked why the ns dEEpist had not repolr€d dre previous
aly involved with a former cliert despirc rhe passingof the req*ed ninioum of
thenpnt as requied by state lav
two yea6 since the last profession,l conracr. The didq ad possibly the diencs
spouseas wel, wele hdned by the affan The nd thqapist was prosecuredfor d erhics code violation ude statelav On
conviction, the Regulatory Bodd.€port€d the c6e to AAMFT fot action by the
Vith a[ past clients &ere is rhe possibility that they vil seekto r€est.btish strvices
with rh& prior the4pist. Vhen that optioo is dosed becaus€a flon therapeutic
relationship hd developed, th€ clenr suff€rs" In this isrance had tlE theEpisr COMMENTS: Bo$ theapists lived in a state wh(€ r€porting susp€ctedethics
been vis€ oough to aloid becoming sdu2ly involved, r}te outcon€ may have codeuoletions by otltt drhpists is m@dated (tlis is trE of ,ll statesvhere the
bed vdy diff€(ert An anhction €xistcd dding rhenpy its€lf but v6 hddted Aeencm Assciation of Md;ag€ 6d Fdily Th€Mpy R€gulatoryBoardt Model
appropriately. The context for the aftu dl@py affeir howvet w6 cstabtished Code of Ethics is the statutory cod€). W}€re r€porting is mmdated, dErapists
within the tnerapy. As a esult, oo ini resolution of the therapy rclationship oc-
cutr€d €wn though 2q extendcd time had passed.It ws the theepGt's responsibil
itJ' to protect the clist aqd dre cli€nls fmily ad ro possibly never becone romad In dis instance,a se€minglymino. brerch of the statecode and the A-AMFT Code
trcaly involved or ro eDgageir my othq q?e of relationship vith rhis didr had Lelh.l consequoces. The tn@pist should haE mede the coupie awde thar
th€y could issuea cooplaint md thar if they chos€ not to, th€ therapist would do
1.6 firorirg. ond fomiry fi€ropbls compt rdrh opplicobh hvs tegErdng the
topoding ol oleg€d unelhicql cordJcf.
Pnxons l: Sugpsxoptts1.7rxnouexl.l3
Rrspon$ trYTo GttNrs
lrotF tet€l3on Annour, )
'lLD.
L
l.7llqftge dd ffiy fi|e tpbts do ttoi ute their pro'€5sbnolr€|l'|iooshiF
sith d€r|l3 io irdte. lh€t own 'ril€!€.ts.
While rcr the prihary drmpist fot ih€ cli€nt, Sddy oay have been ;Ned as a
kind of superior o. "supdisof in this c6e. The efdrel souce cootacted Sddy
b@e of Sady's cput tion ard €xpe.tbe Sddy advisedthe refefial souce to
pced in contacting Avdy. Wheo dings blN up, dF refdral souce .g.io con-
UsER's
GU|DE
TorHEMMFT CoDEoFErH6 12 CraP'R 2 - grBmNqflrs l.7 - l.l3 l3
ractedSand} BecauseAvery worked out of Saodyt office, the perceptioo could be CoMMENTS: This subprinciple requk€s MFTS to both respect clidt ser-de-
dEt Sddy was responsible for the gu,lity of Avery s worK. tdbiMtion od to p!@ide clierts vith the infoimation to hdp them mak€ in-
fomed choice It 6nth6 stipul*es dnt MFT'S i.fom cli6ts thar th€ cliefts ae
Fanily memberswho work togeth€r tu€ rdnefrble to impoprieties Consequentl,
respoGible for dy da;ioN they make. In this example,the Aenpist milateraly
stnct openting bomddies must be enforced to monitor dd haistain rte divisioo
betveen personal md profession2r rehrionships. If Avery dd Sddy hed dJaw! deided that th€ di€ot shodd .ot puJsuemeBories of possiblechildh@d s6uzl
up a formal contract that delineatedrhe bomddes in the; @rkhg elanodship, abue. In so doin& the tlqapist forcdosed dy €xplontion od dismissed the
Smdy might have be€r benei prepared to respood to rhe rquest for guidmce dientt concm l6tad of .dd6sing dE cliott agetrdathe theEpist adviseddle
frcm the referr,l source.The !€f€tal souce could have been rotd that Smdy wa dior ro h.re lss conr.ct with dle cliqrCs pdenl At rhe tnne dE rhqtPist oad€
not aqilable to coment oa Avqy be.2u€ of rte spousalret tionship. Smdymay dle recomodatioa t}Ie il@pist elso did not r@ind the client of the clienls
not have been objective in this siru.tion ed therefor, my eDcowaAemeotm.y respoDsibilityfor wb.revd dedsio. ws mde Cons€quendy,the client made t}te
havebeen construed by others d a poteetial conflict of inrqest. Smdy might atso rldapist tes?onsible fo! th€ deision. The cllent's p{ent prohably fdt conftoled
havesuggestedrhat rlle refernl souce contaa Avay direcdy vidt questions Sddy by tbe th€episrb powr @er dF dienCsdecisions md dftatened by the potdtial
could have.lso recomended two or rhree orhq thehpisrs to the ftfd.,l souce lossof the penCs adult child. The p*ot therefce massed pN€r ovd the $en-
pist by (D?kinga complaint to the licdsing b@d
'1.8moriog. ond tomly lh€rop''sts E5p€ct the .ighb of cfiodi ro M€otal he.Id! professiorals hde hody deb.t€d dE issueof memory !€tdei"l. ln-
mal(e
d€dlot|s ond h€lp th€m to und€rsiord $l€ cot$quer|c.B ot the3e ffi.E stead of making a Eilaterel de.ision about not pEsuiog m€mories of possible
theropbts d€ort oddse the ddtB ftcr $oy have tt|e ?E porublfy ro rd€ childhood sdul abs., the thd?ist could hde helped the clot h,ke I more
decidoB rqofding r€lolion$ips erdr os colEhlHio.L n|ontEc, d'vorEe, info.med d.&iotr by F@iding the clientvith information about tmmatic moo-
soporatlon, r€co.dllodoo, ars'ody, dd vilitidiorl.
ries a v€I 6 issu€sabout tle reli^bjlity of chndhood mmory Ptoviding hfor-
ution vould ha€ met the requireMt id dE pdnciple foi h€lpiog clieots under-
YIGNETTE: Murey dd Ca@I sought couples dErapy from d MFL The
sfud dE @Nequoce of th€n decisions. Moreor€r, since there wee qisting
couple fdt that one of Cdroll parentshad a deserctive innuenc€ on Cdon md
isu6 io the r€lationship betw€en tl€ dieot,nd the didis prcnq th€ therapist
Carrcl's relationship virh Muny. Atnough chndhood nemories vde r€w,Cdrcfl
could lal€ suggesteddat CarcI sek th@py for Carol alone ot for Caroll aad
felt 2s though serual abus€had occDned in.hndh@d at the hdds of rhis p.ml
Cmll's pd€nr Erhe. rho advisi'g dE dient to avoid issuesby not seeing dE
Cdrol vrted the cliniciu, who had rhe rraining ad expqioce to treat sexu,l
abuseissus including rccovqed meDories, to help in th€ Eco€y of m€mories.
The clinicim felt rhar Cdrol may haft b@n absed but did bdi*e thar ir u6
expeditious to "hudt" for ftemories 'Aftet a[ tne abuse,if'orit happded, wuld r.f9 m.rrtdgp cd ffiy th€rlff* co. ln e fil€ Feulic rdolio.r*iF ody so
hzveoccued long ago md srayingstuck in tne p6t wil not h€lp you to li€ in the lo.|9 03 ir b r@ndly d6a lhot clqts q€ bs|efiltE film lhe r€lofbn*ip,
presol" The clinioan, therefore, pdsuded C&roU ro focu on lurcnt poblehs
in fie .oJplei rclaEonship.tud also recomdded that Carou have less (onr/c, YIGNETTE: Paige dd Paige'schil4 Tyld, wc in rlenpy with MFT Ixsli€.
with th€ parent in question beouse the pcnt seoed in6iE dd cootrollinq of Paigevs atso a m6t l health Fofessiooal who did one-sessionmdt l heardr
rhe.ouplei lite C! roJ rool, r}leMFT\ Komendatjon md rotd &e p{eo' rn,' AsssDents, fu ih€ court, of peents in cbild clstody disputes Tosdd th. od of
th€therapBihadadq.eddDttheynorro h,!econt .L.Thereforc,- saiJCarcU ds€rsing a clien! Paigeldned &at a dient wd also id thdapy vith lalie. Paige
the parent, "we wost be gening togerld in th€ turue,' Gnofl's p.mt gA turi'o cobpleted tne ,ss6smot dd Ltq 6ked several @I€agu€s to rwiw the wrk
ous ud Oedr complixl, Th€ prenr al%rd thar Ge tllffipisr h; erertedundue done to ensrc 6at Paig€t co(duions wee unbiasedand substaatiatedby f^cts.
influence on a rd!€rable dient and that this influeoce ws dstrucrive ro th€ fd Paige repoft€d dE situation to Lslie. Iislie ws upset dd insisrcd that Paige
jly. The dB2pist was shocked by dE ,Iegation shce ody .recomendina'
rlnt should bavestopped the assessmdt dd caled in somone dse to do iL Iasli€ also
CdrcI have lecs Edlq drr no contacrwiin rhe prenr. mantaned dEt PaigcDeededto @dtact &e lic€osing bodd ed repott that Palge
UsrR'sGUDEro rHEMMFT CoDEoFErHtcJ l4 LH A P IIR Z - 5TJB 9E N OA 6 I/-I.IJ l5
feel rhat ihe asslsrantminister is cold dd l]mvan2He vould you s€edrem to helP
COMMENTS: This subprinciPle,Iows MFTS to show to third pdties what hd
th€n @rk out t}leir commmic'tion difficultiesl' Dell agreedto se€the two min-
occured (ot is occuffing) in therapy provided the dieot gi€s witten infomed jsteK At the fi6! session,DeI totd the ministers thar eEr)thing they talked about
corsenL Informed consdt goesbeyond simpl€ Frmissioo lt lBts on the Preds'
rould be kept confidential. The scDio! minister lnsisted that dte assistart minister
th.t tlle professiotralhas a duty to discloseto ih€ client hfor@tion that allovs thc
kep the content of &e sessionsconfid€ntial too. Fou sessionswtue hdd. DeI
client to male a reaonable decision ieg{ditg his or h€r PattidPation in tra$nenr
re.Iized that the problem w6 much i"rger d6 commmication issues@d in-
or otha endeavot.Dewiry on SubPrinciPle1 2 conc€.oing mformed consent for
cluded ch{ges by rhe dsistant qinist€r that the senio! minist€r comoonly lied or
tt erapy,we cd infer thzt complete ioformed coffent for thnd-Prtv viNing oI
d;toited infolmation md &2t dr senior minister had also had ioappropnate rel"
clinic2l deterial would r€qune that dients 1) have &e opaciry to cons€nq 2) har
that *ould influence con- tionships with pdshionds. \vlEn $e Presb)tery caled for m uPdate,Deli felt
been zdequarelyidormed of ngoifidt infortutio'
bound. Dell had not establishedded cotrtracts widr the P'esbytery 2bout giving
seot,including potentjzl riskq 3) have fredy ad without udue influeoc€ dPressed
thd iflformztion. MoreoE, DeI had promised the niaisters corfidentiali+
consdq md 4) haveprdided consentthat is aPProPr;t€ly docuent€d- The colPlc
in this *npl€ was nor apprisedof tnc risks of ngning a Elasc with no exPin'
COMMENTS: This subpdnciple rccogrizes that MFTi provide s€Fices to o$-
don dare o! plovlsion fo. rene*4t of de consent They wqe thererore not grvd s for rhi.d prtiq. Id drse relztionships,boundariesale apt to becohe emeshed
adequat€irformtion. Moreova, they vde not advised that cli€nts could took' sincethe thnd paity has d inrstrnent in the senjces giv€' to othe.s. Indeed, it
thejJ cons€nt at any tjme dd for oy reason with resPect to 6rte us€ of ihc maybe dif6curt for MFTS to delineatetle primdy client. This p.inciple stipul,tes,
mlteiial. Wtile t}le couPle not avd tlat \i(hitiey wa showi'g the 610'
'6 rh€refore,that MI'I"S must drify t}te nature of the rel2tionship with eachpany as
Dallls's concern for th€ aoonymiry of Dehst client! w.s suffideot reason for well6 the Imits of confid€nti,li+ L this example, DeU re into difficulties be
\X4imey to discontinue using it. Fi.ally,'i{ftitney !2s showing the 6ln in a contexr
causethe boud*ies rd expectationsin eachrelationshiF wde not cldifi€d prior
not dticipated by the clients when dreysigned dle Mivd y€a.sbefore' Thev m€hr ro bcgimi.g rc.L M& fie ninistds Moreovd, DeIt promise of confidenti,lity
havewithheld coosent if thet krN that one day ihe 6lrn wuld be shom in tnen oEde it i@Fossiblefor De[ ro give dy informatioo back Io the Presbyterywhq in
placeof oployment. A legalistic aPProachto this scMio might find it adequat'
this cese,ws &e piimary dior. In the future, DeI ne€ds to ascertainwhat dre
t}llt t]re cndts had agreedro "educational use" for m unimited time Pdiod But Presbrterydpecrs, who they €xpect iq vhat tley htend to do with th€ jnforoa-
Subpiinciple 1.121 highd ethic.l stmdard idPlies dEt this significdt shifr i. dr tion, md what th€y have rold dle refdied p,Jties about their expectations-Theq
use of the frlrn undercuts th€ couple's original consetrtand th4€fore it (,mot b' De[ needsto cldit with the refe!rcd pdties tlle natue of Ddl's relationship with
assumedthat the couPlet interestsw€le adeq@telyProtected i! the @r€ot situ4 the Presbttery and th€ 6tent to which confidentitity cm be promised. Wrie
tion. To rmedy this, whimey would needto seeka renewedconsett contnct frcn
lhiting confidenti.lity may.educe th€ shding of info(hation, tlE setting of reai
rhe couple ecpting us of the 6itn in the nev lootioi! for a sP€cified timq istic bomddies protecrs th€ Deedsof,I p&ties dd ,llors De[ &e flexibility to
tukhg n cre' $ar eifi€r hdvduat codd urhdraw pamission dt dv timr'
move berwecn the thnd paty dd tne iefered pdties. Moreover, having cle,r
bomdaries sets stadrds about what vil dd won't be alowed Such stmdards
r.B rnonioge cnd fomty lh.ropfuis, uPoo ogreeing lo Pr!*le s€tties lo o cu provide a senseof efety dd secwity to othes.
oq3on or €nlit dt lhe r€qr€st of o ftnd Porly, dqify, to lfic etd€rt faosab
imd at lh. o,ft€t of lhe t;t"ke rh€ nat'rn of rh€ r€loliordft rdfti €odl
pdty ond lfi€ linils ot co||fidd{iony'