Ethical Problems to Be Solved with a Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association - Case Study Example

Ethics Case Study Assessment Introduction The case study that the research proposal focused on mainly took a close evaluation of a situation involving Dr. Jones and Mr. Albertson. The case study, however, exhibits a number of complications because it involves close interaction between a psychotherapist and a client surpassing the limits of counseling. The issues that arise in the described case concern aspects of privacy and confidentiality, education and training of the specialist, her competence, and human relations. Despite the fact that the therapist seemed to act in patient`s best interests, there appeared certain ethical problems that could only be solved with the help of Code of Conduct as per American Psychological Association. To give a brief definition of the case, it is necessary to mention that after concussion, the patient found himself in a condition in which he could no longer rely on his cognition alone, but needed coordination and guidance. The therapist decided to help the client and disclosed information to an attorney and a friend after signing a release with the client. The counselor also attracted other people to assist Mr. Albertson as he seemed to lose his connection with reality. Despite the evident fact that Dr. Jones was acting according to then Principle A of Ethical Principles of Psychologists, which states that beneficence and normal efficence are the core aspects of work. As per the psychologists’ principle, they strive to benefit those in working relationship with them, as they remain careful to do no harm. Acting professionally, psychologists ensures high responsibility to safeguarding the welfare as well as the rights of individuals they interact within the professional field as well as other affected person (Jackson, 2012). The First Noticeable Violation Concerns Privacy and Confidentiality The issue is rather ambivalent because psychologists could view therapist as acting in the situation of emergency, in attempt to assist client. In one instant, any intervention in a patient`s personal life is a violation of his life. However, on the other hand, a psychotherapist uses guidelines of principle of beneficence of a customer. Consequently, he in some cases needs to choose whether to violate or not to violate the client’s rights in an attempt to solving a problem (Prasko & Vyskocilova, 2013). However, Dr. Jones made a serious and responsible decision to have the client, who was already suffering from injury and demonstrated multiple cognitive deficits, sign a release to share his individual information with unfamiliar persons. The release was quite a disputable and problematic document because it was not likely that Mr. Albertson could evaluate adequately what was going on. The reason is that he had troubles understanding concepts, however, such agreements could be made only in the condition of full patient`s awareness. The act could also violate the assessment standard to a certain extent. Moreover, further information disclosure about the patient followed initial communication with the attorney and Mr. Albertson`s friend (despite the fact that primary discussion only covered these two people). In the case study, it is mentioned that Dr. Jones communicated to primary physician and others revealing confidential information about Mr. Albertson. Therefore, Dr. Jones violated the principle of privacy and confidentiality several times. The first happened when signing the document, and secondly, when he disclosed the client’s information to the physician and friends. Confidentiality standard presupposes that, psychologists have a basic responsibility and become reasonably cautious to safeguard information treated as confidential and obtained through or stacked away in any medium. Similarly, recognizing that law may regulate limits of circumspection or put in place by institutional rules or scientific relationship or professional (Zur, 2014). In addition, the information disclosure only takes place with the appropriate acceptance of the client, patient or any other person deemed to have legal authority on behalf aforementioned unless law prohibited (Meyer, 2012). Thus, violation of confidentiality principle took place as the therapist should have taken into account for mental condition of patient at the period of release signing. Furthermore, he should have been more careful when disclosing information to the physician and friends of the patient. It is also a disputable question whether Mr. Albertson could asses if he needed counseling continuation or not. It is stated that his understanding of his rights was rather blurred hence Dr. Jones probably made the decision to continue with the therapy. The issue of competency also attracts attention. Dr. Jones was acting beyond the limits of her competency because she did not have necessary expertise to assess the seriousness of Mr. Albertson`s injury. The reason being the case belonged to the other medical sphere, which is neurology. Dr. Jones was more or less familiar with psychological state of the client while taking it up and should have reported it to the physician and neurologist upon release. The complicated issue here is that the attorney who helped Mr. Albertson with settlement could rely only on the evidence of Dr. Jones because he did not meet with Mr. Albertson in person. Moreover, Mr. Albertson himself would not be able to describe his state to the attorney due to his state of bad injury. Therefore, Dr. Jones was acting in emergent situation. However, she was surpassing the limits of her competency as a professional. Additionally, Dr. Joes intervened Mr. Albertson`s personal life contacting his friends and relatives. In terms of state regulations, Dr. Jones did not violate the requirements of her licensing in terms of confidentiality because the purpose of acquisition was reasonable. According to the Psychology Practice Act of Minneapolis, if the counselor initiates the release of information with the purpose of coordinating specialized care with an additional source, to acquire insurance payments for services, or for other particular purposes under condition of release as a document submitting, it is acceptable (Minnesota Board of Psychology, 2013). Psychologists use the term “conflict of interests” to describe situation in which classified financial welfare of a fiduciary agent or communal official will gain by the authority of their exceptional rank of trust. In a disagreement situation, a person may use a professional position to enhance the private interest of a fiduciary agent. Within such circumstances, there exists a conflict of interest since the attorney as well as the counselor demonstrates interest in directing Mr. Albertson to the process of settlement and to receiving financial benefits for their services (Meyer, 2012). The patient did not understand what is going on and could not assess adequately his legal rights. Consequently, it was rather easy take advantage of him. The intention of Mr. Albertson`s lawyer to arrange the compensation without assessing the client`s condition adequately and attracting the psychiatrist to this assessment could have negative legal consequences for both specialists. Despite the fact that Mr. Albertson and Dr. Jones signed a document, explaining all the fees for additional services it is most likely that this document cannot be considered valid taking into account the state of the patient. Moreover, actions of the lawyer and therapist could subject them to questioning since they both realized mental state of the patient yet they continued working with him. If the patient or his relatives reveal this conflict of interest to the legal experts, there would be a possibility of a lawsuit. Moreover, Dr. Jones is combining several different roles and that can provoke problems for her as well as for the client. Dr. Jones remaining Mr. Albertson`s therapist serves as an expert for the attorney who relies on her evidence regarding the client`s state. Moreover, her involvement into Mr. Albertson private life with helping to settle down and acting as a friend is also a violation of law. This blending of roles can affect negatively the therapy or even make it impossible in future. There also arise legal complications in case when Dr. Jones reveals information to the physician and other involved without permission. For assessing this situation right, it is necessary to know the context of the case. The major issue underlined in the case, is that Mr. Albertson has no one to help him: no relatives, no close friends, and this fact forces Dr. Jones participate in his destiny. However, maybe humanism and responsibility drive her actions before her client; there is still a logical limit for her actions and participation marked by the Ethical Code of Conduct. Conclusion Within this scenario, it remains not reasonably vivid whether Mr. Albertson does require therapy because he has serious problems with perception of reality due to his cognitive impairment. Therefore, probably it would be even more reasonable to cease the therapy until the client can assess the reality adequately. If the patient does require therapy, it would be logical to find another more qualified therapist who would not perform other roles except for his professional reasons. That is the best help that Dr. Jones could offer to her client without the risk of doing harm. It is necessary to cease working with Dr. Jones as she passes professional limits consulting and communicating to people connected with Mr. Albertson. She risks making the situation worse. The intentions of Dr. Jones to help Mr. Albertson as a friend made the therapy impossible and it will be absolutely better to attract Mr. Albertson`s relatives to performing their duties. References Jackson, S. L. (2012). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Meyer, J. (2012). Fresh legal perspectives: Psychologists I dual relationships. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/divisions/div12/legalper.pdf Minnesota Board of Psychology, (January 29, 2013). Psychology Practice Act. Minnesota: Minneapolis. Retrieved on December 28, 2014 from https://www.google.com/search?q=Psychology+Practice+Act%2C+2013&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Prasko, J., & Vyscocilova, A. (2013). Ethical questions and dilemmas in psychotherapy, ANSR, 55,(1-2). Psychology Practice Act.(2013).Minnesota Board of Psychology. Retrieved from: http://www.psychologyboard.state.mn.us/docs/Practice_Act_v02112013-7.pdf Zur, O. (2014). Ethics Codes On Confidentiality In Psychotherapy And Counseling. Innovative Resources. Sonoma: Zur Institute, CA. Retrieved on December 28, 2014 from http://www.zurinstitute.com/ethicsofconfidentiality.html Read More