Lecture 2 Flashcards
Introduction and applicability of ethics code
The preamble and general principles are aspirational goals to guide psychologists toward the highest ideals of psychology, they are not themselves enforceable rules. Standards set forth enforceable rules for conduct as psychologists. The ethical standards are not exhaustive. The fact that a given conduct is not specifically addressed by an ethical standard does not mean that it is necessarily either ethical or unethical. Prior to 1992 revision, these were combined, but there was a 1990 lawsuit that it was unclear what part was aspirational (White v. North Carolina State Board of Examiners of Practicing Psychologists). This led to the 1992 revision - in legal matters, it has to be clear what is enforceable. The standards were separated to be more behaviorally focused and form the basis of a sanction.
Professional and personal life
The code also applies only to professional conduct, not personal life. They can be difficult to separate though, especially with technology. Have to be aware of role. Sometimes need to clarify if it is a personal or professional opinion before speaking. Pipes et al (2005) is the behavior linked to a role played by the psychologist? Does the behavior, on its face, seem at least partially professional? Is there a high probability that those with whom the psychologist works will be affected? Does the action threaten the professional credibility of the psychologist or the discipline of psychology?
Lack of awareness
Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an ethical standard is not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct. The modifers used in some of the standards of this ethics code are included in the standards when they would allow professional judgment on the part of psychologists, eliminate injustice or inequality that would occur without the modifier, ensure applicability across the broad range of activities conducted by psychologists, or guard against a set of rigid rules that might be quickly outdated.
The term reasonable
As used in this ethics code, the term reasonable means the prevailing professional judgment of psychologists engaged in similar activities in similar circumstances, given the knowledge the psychologist had or should have had at the time. If this ethics code establishes a higher standard of conduct than is required by law, psychologists must meet the higher ethical standard. If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with the law, regulations, or other governing authority, psychologists make known their commitment to the ethics code and take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner. If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing authority in keeping with basic principles of human rights (part of if…authority was removed in 2010).
General principles
Whenever conflict between standards, go to higher principles. Beneficence and nonmaleficence, fidelity and responsibility (duty to people, trustworthy, fulfill obligations), integrity (honest, truthful), justice (fairness, not letting personal bias get in the way), respect for people’s rights and dignity (all people, all cultures, letting people make own choices, don’t force values onto clients).
Ethical standard groups
Grouped into 10 themes, confidentiality cuts across most of them since it’s relevant a lot. 1 - resolving ethical issues. 2 - competence. 3 - human relations. 4 - privacy and confidentiality. 5 - advertising and other public statements. 6 - record keeping and fees. 7 - education and training. 8 - research and publication. 9 - assessment. 10 - therapy.
2016 amendments
3.04 section b added - essentially do not engage in torture. There has been a close relationship between psychology and the military.
2010 amendments
1.02 - can’t violate human rights if conflict between ethics and law. 1.03 - same with no violating human rights with organizational demands.
History with military
DoD in 80s - prescription privileges in the military, enhanced the relationship. In the 1990s, APA was kind of an inbred group, people in power knew and appointed each other, didn’t allow for dissention. 9/11 attacks. Change to APA ethics code in 2002 - changed wording about law conflicts or governing body conflicts, can set aside ethics code to go with governing body (was not intended to facilitate interrogation use, but it did allow for it). Executive order later on saying Geneva Convention did not apply to Al Qaeda prisoners because they are “enemy combattants.” Led to enhanced interrogation techniques. Mid 2000s, APA endorsed their contributions to interrogation process, but maybe didn’t know torture was going on. People said they should have known though. 2 psychologists contracted with CIA to help implement interrogation (paid $81 million). 2004 NY times article. 2005 clear to the public it was torture. In June of 2005, APA developed task force (PENS: Presidential Task Force on Ethics and National Security). 6 of 9 members had involvement with the DoD. Report 3 days later, 1 week of review by APA directors (skipped council of representatives). 2006 - psychologists will not be involved in torture. 2014 - Sidley law firm hired to deal with complaints against APA (was there collusion between PENS and military). Hoffman report in 2015 July 2, yes collusion, especially chair of ethics committee wanting to maintain favor with military. APA doing things to boost military more than other people. (Minkey?) accused of putting up blocks to change and pursuing ethics complaints against psychologists involved in torture. Fired, filed defamation lawsuit for false accusations in 2017. Some complaints that Hoffman report was biased.
APA Council of Representatives in 2015 policy
New statements/panel, psychologists shall not engage in national security interrogations or advise on conditions of confinement insofar as these might facilitate interrogation. APA council voted to create blue ribbon panel to evaluate and make recommendations regarding possible changes to APA ethics office and ethics processes.
Ethical decision making
Have to exercise judgment with situations that aren’t explicitly addressed (code just has most common issues). Is there an ethical issue? Consider if it is really an issue or just different clinical approaches, laws might not have anything to do with ethics. Moral sensitivity - interpreting a situation as having moral or ethical aspects and implications, even when no dilemma exists (1986). Consider the APA ethics code, professional guidelines, and organizational policies. Are there laws specific to the situation (local, state, federal). Try to understand the perspectives of different individuals who will affect or be affected by the outcome of decisions. Generate ethical alternatives. Prioritize and select the alternative most consistent with the APA ethics code. Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the action. Modify and continue to evaluate as needed. Crisis situation - don’t always have time to go through everything. Would/should dilemma - what you do isn’t always what you should do. Can come out of non-rational thoughts or unhealthy stuff psychologically. Integrating professional ethics with personal values and cognitive and affective processing. Self-serving bias can create a conflict of interest. So as to optimize your action plan: must possess ethical and legal knowledge, accurately assess the issues at hand, self-regulate one’s thoughts, emotional arousal, negative affect concerning the problem and person, prepare for managing the affective dynamics that might occur during the confrontation, endurance.
Moral courage
Facing ethical challenges firmly and confidently
Unethical acts by a peer (informal peer monitoring)
- Review the ethical standards - review, make sure you have it right. 2. Assess the strength of a violation - also if you have evidence vs. second hand info. 3. Assess your own motivation for acting - is it because you don’t like the person. 4. consult with a trusted colleague - can do it hypothetically, maybe pick someone who has expertise in that area. 5. decide what to do 6. when confronting, remain calm and self-confident. 7. set a constructive problem solving tone. 8. describe ethical obligations - that you’re filing a complaint, etc. 9. allow the peer time to explain or defend. 10. may need follow-up. The more harm occurring, the more likely you’ll need to go to the ethics committee.
Practice guidelines
Statements that suggest or recommend specific professional behavior, endeavor, or conduct for psychologists. Aspirational in intent. Not definitive and not intended to take precedence over the judgment of psychologists. Inform psychologists and the public regarding desirable professional practices.
Some examples of guidelines
Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. Guidelines for providers of psychological services to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. Guidelines for psychological practice with older adults. Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. Guidelines for the practice of telepsychology. Record keeping guidelines.
