A therapist, Janice told a potential client who suffered depression through phone that psychotherapy would effectively relieve his conditions and improve his job performance within ten sessions. However, she did not mention to the client that depression sometimes will be aggravated and the treatment might last longer than expected, thus additional session might be needed, and there might be need a psychiatrist assessment for antidepressant medication. Referral to the primary physician for coordinate treatment also may be needed. Janice also used complex terms to describe the therapy details that the potential client not understand. Janice also forgot to discuss about the confidentiality, consultation fee, frequency of the consultation and there
…show more content…
His emotional status has been stable in approximately three years except he has developed a growing attachment to counselor. Jia Xin has not strongly recommended Jax’s termination to the consultation session or reduce the frequency of the session. She charged Jax RM400.00 per consultation. Her attitude is if the client thinks that he needs to find me for consultation, then he does. Jia Xin failed to comply with principle of beneficence. She did not evaluate the client based on her professional knowledge and to ethically terminate consultation at the time Jax did not need continued therapy or consultation was no longer beneficial. The possibility exists that Jia Xin facilitated Jax’s dependency and try to prolonged needless therapy, so that suggesting exploitation for financial or emotional satisfaction. The best interest of client should be considered to determine termination and referral but Jia Xin failed to do so. She focused on her best interest more than best interest of …show more content…
Joanne had done several testing and from the date acquired showed there is no effectiveness and improvement from her recent consultation. She choose to disregarded the outcome information and proposed to the company that a longer trail was needed continue to offer the unproductive consultation at very high fees until the company realized the ineffectiveness and finally terminate the contract with her.
Joanne’s choose to disregard the date and continue offer the unproductive consultation are in breach of the principle of non-maleficence. If Joanne feels she is incompetence to the task given, she should not continue the counseling session to avoid making improper assessment and harming clients. Alternatively, she should re-evaluating the consultation plans and designing an alternative ways to overcome the problems to mitigate or prevent any harm that caused to client.
3.5 Case Study For Principles Of
His emotional status has been stable in approximately three years except he has developed a growing attachment to counselor. Jia Xin has not strongly recommended Jax’s termination to the consultation session or reduce the frequency of the session. She charged Jax RM400.00 per consultation. Her attitude is if the client thinks that he needs to find me for consultation, then he does. Jia Xin failed to comply with principle of beneficence. She did not evaluate the client based on her professional knowledge and to ethically terminate consultation at the time Jax did not need continued therapy or consultation was no longer beneficial. The possibility exists that Jia Xin facilitated Jax’s dependency and try to prolonged needless therapy, so that suggesting exploitation for financial or emotional satisfaction. The best interest of client should be considered to determine termination and referral but Jia Xin failed to do so. She focused on her best interest more than best interest of …show more content…
Joanne had done several testing and from the date acquired showed there is no effectiveness and improvement from her recent consultation. She choose to disregarded the outcome information and proposed to the company that a longer trail was needed continue to offer the unproductive consultation at very high fees until the company realized the ineffectiveness and finally terminate the contract with her.
Joanne’s choose to disregard the date and continue offer the unproductive consultation are in breach of the principle of non-maleficence. If Joanne feels she is incompetence to the task given, she should not continue the counseling session to avoid making improper assessment and harming clients. Alternatively, she should re-evaluating the consultation plans and designing an alternative ways to overcome the problems to mitigate or prevent any harm that caused to client.
3.5 Case Study For Principles Of