Ethics Flashcards
principles vs. standards
principles are ASPIRATIONAL,
standards are ENFORCABLE/MANDATORY
consultation
- commonly sought out on a one-time or occasional basis
- appropriate when psychologist is somewhat familiar with treating a particular disorder but are not an expert in the area
- appropriate when a psychologist has concerns about whether they can remain objective in treatment
supervision
- ongoing process with careful scrutiny of a case
- required when learning a new technique, new to working with a specific population, or treating a disorder you have no experience in
training
- required when psychologist is unfamiliar with a certain area of knowledge
referring out
appropriate when…
- personal beliefs / issues interfere with therapy
- client feels uncomfortable with the therapist
- therapist lacks competence in treating the presenting problem
subpoenas
requires a therapist to appear for questioning
subpoena duces tecum
- requires a therapist to appear with the client records
- if the client gives permission to release information → release the information
- if client does not give permission → contact whoever issued the subpoena, request that it be quashed
- if it is not quashed, go to court and assert patient-therapist privilege and neither testify nor release information (unless ordered to do so by the court)
court order
- signed by a judge, must comply
court-appointed evaluation
- the court is the client, client has no confidentiality rights
- If client is not cooperating in a court eval, eval should be postponed and advise defendant to contact attorney
- no need for informed consent from client but they should be told confidentiality limits
*in questions where they just say they’re conducting a psychological evaluation of a defendant and it’s not clear who asked for it. Go with the answer that says “the client” is whatever person/entity retained the psychologist. In court appointment= court. But it can be a law firm, lawyer, entity, party or other person who has retained and has a contractural relationship with the forensic psychologist.
court-ordered therapy
- the client is the client, client has confidentiality rights
child custody evaluation
- when the courts intervene in a divorce and order a child custody evaluation to determine the restructuring of rights and responsibilities
- focuses on parenting attributes, the needs of the child, and the resulting fit
- therapists should not be involved in child custody evaluations of former or current clients
- both parents and child are examined
bartering
permissible as long as it is not clinically contraindicated and not exploitative
Case of family that doesn’t speak English what to do?
Can’t get kids to be translators
Discuss (if possible - bc don’t speak language)
Refer
If not possible, get professional translated
Ask for training practitioner doesn’t have
Inform of lack of training
Provide options
If they still want that training - Refer
* can’t operate outside of competence
If referral is not possible - must make reasonable efforts to get training, knowledge and consultation (so long as they have closely related training/experience)
Deceiving participants in research (when is it OK vs NOT ok?)
Psychologists are NOT to deceive if there is reasonable/expected cause for physical pain/severe emotional distress.
Psychologists OK to deceive: when there is no risk for pain/distress, no alternative methods available, prospective value is increased if deceived.
Withholding fees for nonpayment
Withholding fees is always unethical**
Debriefing participants
Psychs are to debrief immediately after their participation but when it isn’t possible, take steps to reduce risk for harm.
ASPPB guidelines for qualifications of supervisors (primary vs delegated)
Primary: must be licensed psych and is responsible for most of interns supervision
Delegated: may be licensed psych or other mental health practitioner
Insanity defence
Rare in felony cases (raised in less than 1%) & usually unsuccessful (~25% of the time)
Tarasoff decision and duty to warn changes
Nowadays, many agree that tarasoff isn’t relevant in situations because:
1) it doesn’t apply to past behaviours
2) applies ONLY when potential victims are identifiable
3) risk for harm doesn’t rise to the level of foreseeable harm (dangerousness) I.e. unsafe sex with HIV involves risk but no certainty that HIV will be transmitted
- always consider provincial laws that address actions pertaining to HIV
Minor client says they want to take their own life but then say.. jk.. I lied.. how do you proceed according to ethical standards?
Continue to discuss with client feelings about killing self to determine if they’re actually at risk. If risk» report.
Minor client says they want to take their own life but then say.. jk.. how do you proceed according to ethical standards?
Continue to discuss with client feelings about killing self to determine if they’re actually at risk. If risk» report.
Client invite you to a party how do you proceed?
Going to party is allowed but before going you:
consider nature of relationships and potential effect on her of your acceptance/refusal of invitation. BEFORE deciding whether or not to accept the invitation.
In person solicitation of business
Must not engage in uninvited in person solicitation from current /potential clients who are vulnerable to undue influence
Test administration for non English speakers
Ethical guidelines don’t state that psychologists must use tests in another language when evaluating children with limited English skills. Because maybe they have a specific test they must use.
So… psychologist can hire an interpreter who has appropriate training and must indicate limitations of test results in report
3 developmental levels of IDM model of supervision
Self-other awareness, motivation and autonomy
Personal problems
1) refrain from accepting cases where it’s likely a personal problem will impede your effectiveness
2) take appropriate measures if personal problem pops up during: seek consultation to determine whether to limit, suspend or terminate.
Multiple relationships
NOT unethical but should be avoided*. OK as long as they don’t cause: harm, exploitation, impairment.
- Small town/someone you know asks for support: consider the potential risks and make decisions accordingly.
- enter into a non professional relationship with client (barter/providing services for you): not OK if you’re their boss
- client starts dating friend: take reasonable steps to resolve with due regard for client best interests and maximal compliance to ethics code
- this is also why you can’t date relatives or friends or clients.
Request to amend client records
Can reject request if it means PHI would be less accurate. Even if this happens, we still must document a request was made.
If we do amend, then we must record it as an amendment to the record
Assessments
Job asks you to admin an assessment but you don’t have experience and they refuse to pay. You must pay and get consultation/training.
If you don’t have experience assessing a certain thing, you must refer out.
If you use an interpret: get them to sign an informed consent too, discuss with client and include in report the limitations of using an interpreter
MAY BE OK to use obsolete tests and test results in certain circumstances. (When it’s appropriate for the purposes of the current evaluation ie. has norms for a clients racial group but new version doesn’t)
