Evaluating Ethics Codes for Expert Counselors
This post appears at the distinctions among the codes of ethics offered by three professional counseling companies The American Counseling Affiliation, The American Affiliation of Christian Counselors and the American Association of Pastoral Counselors. The write-up examines the variances in the memberships of the organization, the resulting dissimilarities in the organizations’ code of ethics and discusses a person missing aspect in just about every code.
General Observations on the three Codes
The codes discussed down below were published by the American Counseling Affiliation (ACA, 2005), the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC, 2004), and the American Affiliation of Pastoral Counselors (AAPC, 1993).
The ACA Code of Ethics is revised every single 10 decades and was previous revised in 2005. The code has 8 sections: the counseling marriage, confidentiality, skilled responsibility, relationships with other pros, evaluations, supervision and training, study, and resolving moral issues. Counseling Now summarized the Code’s recent adjustments to include: improved emphasis on multiculturalism making it possible for dual interactions if it consists of likely helpful interactions broadened acceptable use of know-how in study, history preserving and counseling more detail language on counselor impairment and transfer of purchasers and finally, modifications in many terms but not the meaning as an illustration “checks” are now referred to as “assessments”. (Highlights of ACA Code of Ethics, 2005)
The AACC code was finalized in 2004 soon after 10 several years and 4 provisional codes. This is the longest of the a few codes. The Code’s main sections are: applicability of the code, introduction and mission statement, Biblical basis concepts, ethical specifications, and procedural rules. The moral benchmarks section is divided in between the various types of membership. The AACC Code involves the most substantial segment on resolving conflicts and dealing with of grievances.
The AAPC is the shortest of the three codes. The code was final revised in 1993 and at this time the procedural portion was divided from the Code of Ethics (Beck, 1997). The Code has 7 sections: prologue, experienced techniques, client associations, confidentiality, supervisee, university student and personnel interactions, interprofessional relationships and marketing.
Qualifications of companies
The ACA, AACC and AAPC, as companies, have diverse charters and membership.
The ACA is an group geared towards providing products and services to experienced accredited counselors from all backgrounds and planet-views. For illustration, a member could have a environment-see dependent in atheism, Buddhism, Islam or Christianity. The ACA are unable to believe any very similar ethical belief or qualifications amongst its member.
The AACC membership has a wide part in the definition of counselor and a slender facet in that the members are Christian. The AACC Code of Ethics encompasses sections applicable to expert licensed counselors, pastoral counselors, and lay helpers.
The AAPC has the narrowest of memberships. Complete membership in AAPC needs the member have an M. Div and be ordained by a denominational organization. The denominational corporation does not have to be a Christian denomination. The AAPC Code in the Prologue part specifically states the counselors are also issue to their dominations code of ethics.
Ethical Descriptors Comparison
In comparing two Christian codes from the American Affiliation of Pastoral Counselors and the Christian Affiliation for Psychological Scientific studies with two secular codes from the American Counseling Affiliation and the American Psychological Association, Beck the uses the 23 vital ethical descriptors. The descriptors are from Williams Index of Moral Code Terminology that was determined by Austin, Moline, and Williams (1990) as contained in the 6 codes they examined (Beck, 1997). Desk 1 includes the 23 descriptors, extra conditions identified and cross-references the respective codes sections to each and every descriptor or term.
The ACA Code is made up of all of the 23 moral descriptors mentioned by Beck and most of the supplemental phrases. The only segment that the ACA Code does not involve is the exclusive care sections bundled in the AACA Code related to compound abuse, abortion, divorce, shopper sexual affairs, and homosexual behaviors.
The AACC Code handles all the descriptors other than for refusal of procedure, fraud, strategies and like the AAPC Code does not contain the supplemental descriptors relevant to the use of know-how, consultation and forensic analysis.
The AAPC Code contains the the very least descriptors of the three codes. It does not involve the descriptors related to measurement tests, safety, reporting colleagues, multicultural customers, teams, unique treatment predicaments, technological know-how, session or forensic evaluations.
Even while the codes may possibly consist of sections relevant to each and every descriptor, it does not observe that every Code offers for comparable procedure of the descriptors. Two illustrations of descriptors that are taken care of in different ways are suicide and twin relationships.
Portion A.9 of the ACA Code discusses suicide. This section leaves the decision to aid or not help assisted suicide up to the counselor and states that the counselor really should attempt to “help consumers to work out the maximum degree of self-dedication probable”. The AACC Code discusses suicide in section E1-127. The AACC Code offers counselors need to refuse to “condone or advocate for lively kinds of euthanasia and assisted suicide”. The AAPC Code does not deal with this subject. A counselor who is a member of the ACA and AACC would be matter to conflicting Codes of Ethics in the space similar to counselor steps in regards to assisted suicide.
The variance connected to dual associations are not as distinct as in suicide, but the language of the a few codes does appear to be to current of spectrum of guidance on dual interactions.
The ACA Code, in 2005, was transformed to reduce the restriction on dual interactions. Section A.5.d of the ACA Code now permits a dual marriage if the relationship is advantageous to the counseling romantic relationship. The ACA wording appears indicate an acceptance of dual relationships. Section ES 1-140 to 1-146 of the AACC Code state that some dual associations are unethical. The AACC Code does make it possible for for an exception but states that is crucial for the counselor to document the dual romantic relationship and to plainly document the logic for the marriage in the customer notes. The language employed in the AACC Code seems to be much less supportive of twin relationships than the ACA Code. The AAPC Code seems to be the most restrictive in stating in Basic principle III E. ” We stay clear of dual relationship with shoppers… which could impair our qualified judgment”. The AAPC Code does not acknowledge a favourable twin connection or provide steerage on how to identify or deal with a good dual connection.
Hathaway (2001) raises the question of what foundation is delivered to help the ethics code? He goes on to notice that Christian and secular specialist codes are comparable on many significant details. He reasons that this is due to the actuality that all psychological wellbeing industry experts are experienced in the exact same or similar instruction systems, work in the very same surroundings and operate towards the very same targets. A very similar dilemma is elevated by Freeman, Engels, and Altekruse (2004) when they mentioned, ” people who exercise…behavioral sciences frequently make ethical/ethical judgments about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of distinct steps, but what is the basis for these types of judgment? How are they justified?” The one component lacking from all a few versions is the foundation for the moral selection-earning. This leaves the practitioner with no a supportive framework to reference in predicaments that do drop just into the norm or in which sections of a variety of codes conflict as pointed out higher than. The Tarasoff scenario as referenced by Freeman et al. (2004) is a great case in point of this challenge. The three codes involve the counselor to keep confidentiality of information linked to the counselee and counseling classes. But how does the counselor know when a competing element of the code, these kinds of as do no harm, would outweigh a further portion without having a sound comprehension of the theoretically underpinnings of the code and/or a outlined conclusion-building product.
As the decision building model is still left up to the authors of the codes, these code will be issue to constant redrafting to satisfy switching examples of ethical difficulties that are introduced.
American Association of Christian Counselors. (2004). AACC Code of Ethics. Alexandria, Va.
American Affiliation of Pastoral Counselors. (1993). Code of Ethics. Fairfax, Va.
American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, Va.
Austin, K.M., Moline, M.E., & Williams, G.T. (1990). Confronting Malpractice: Authorized and Moral Dilemmas in Psychotherapy. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Beck, J. (1997). Christian Codes, Are They Superior? Christian Counseling Ethics (pp. 313-325). Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press.
Freeman, S., Engels, D., & Altekruse, M. (2004, April). Foundation for ethical expectations and codes: The function of ethical philosophy and theory in ethics. Counseling and Values, 48, 163-174.
Hathaway, W. (2001). Typical Sense Expert Ethics: A Christian Appraisal. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29, 224-233.
Highlights of ACA Code of Ethics. (2005, October). Counseling Right now, 1,16-17,63.