Ethical Principles of Psychologists: Dr. Jones
The American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, otherwise known as the Ethics Code is in place to protect not only the client, patient or organizations’ interests and well-being but also that of the psychological professional. The principles and standards presented in the Ethics Code should be used to guide the practice of and subsequent relationships of professionals in the field of psychology. The evaluation of the given case study of, Dr. Jones and Mr. Albertson is riddled with ethical issues, many of which have conflicting standards and opposing principles. Mr. Albertson while being treated for a short time by Dr. Jones for depression had an …show more content…
Albertson and Dr. Jones. One of the key principles impacting the overall case and actions of Dr. Jones are that of principle A. One of the fundamental principles in the practice of psychology is to steward those under one’s care from harm, or at the very least minimize the impact of harm. As stated in principle A, “psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons and the welfare of animal subjects of research.” (American Psychological Association, 2010.) In the case of Mr. Albertson and Dr. Jones, the established counseling relationship is directly transposed as an implication of Mr. Albertson’s accident. Although the initial need for the relationship has changed, it is still important for Dr. Jones to safeguard the welfare and rights of Mr. Albertson, now more than ever. Principle A comes in direct opposition to principle B in this case, as due to Mr. Albertson’s cognitive impairment it has been virtually impossible for Dr. Jones to explain her professional role and to avoid exceeding its limits. While Dr. Jones has made the appropriate attempts to pass Mr. Albertson’s care on to a more appropriate entity, these attempts have been unprolific. Attempts to finance his care through Workman’s Compensation have also proven futile, however this is a little concern as principle B states that a …show more content…
Jones has been unable to arrange for a private social worker for Mr. Albertson, and is quite possibly not being paid for her services. As described in the principles of the Ethics Code a lack of financing should not cause a psychologist to disregard a clients’ welfare and rights. Standard 6.04 d states that if finances limit available services this issue must be discussed immediately. In the case of Mr. Albertson his inability to comprehend this concepts leads to a larger issue. As standard 10.09 indicates Mr. Albertson’s welfare exceeds his contractual obligation to pay for services. Services cannot be terminated until more appropriate or alternate services are available, as confirmed by standard 10.10 terminating services. Furthermore the termination of the therapist/client relationship in this case is not in the best interest of Mr. Albertson. “For many clients, the experience of parting with the therapeutic atmosphere in which they are acknowledged, accepted, and validated unconditionally while mitigating life circumstances can range from hopeful to anxiety provoking.” (Lenz, 2012,
The American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, otherwise known as the Ethics Code is in place to protect not only the client, patient or organizations’ interests and well-being but also that of the psychological professional. The principles and standards presented in the Ethics Code should be used to guide the practice of and subsequent relationships of professionals in the field of psychology. The evaluation of the given case study of, Dr. Jones and Mr. Albertson is riddled with ethical issues, many of which have conflicting standards and opposing principles. Mr. Albertson while being treated for a short time by Dr. Jones for depression had an …show more content…
Albertson and Dr. Jones. One of the key principles impacting the overall case and actions of Dr. Jones are that of principle A. One of the fundamental principles in the practice of psychology is to steward those under one’s care from harm, or at the very least minimize the impact of harm. As stated in principle A, “psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons and the welfare of animal subjects of research.” (American Psychological Association, 2010.) In the case of Mr. Albertson and Dr. Jones, the established counseling relationship is directly transposed as an implication of Mr. Albertson’s accident. Although the initial need for the relationship has changed, it is still important for Dr. Jones to safeguard the welfare and rights of Mr. Albertson, now more than ever. Principle A comes in direct opposition to principle B in this case, as due to Mr. Albertson’s cognitive impairment it has been virtually impossible for Dr. Jones to explain her professional role and to avoid exceeding its limits. While Dr. Jones has made the appropriate attempts to pass Mr. Albertson’s care on to a more appropriate entity, these attempts have been unprolific. Attempts to finance his care through Workman’s Compensation have also proven futile, however this is a little concern as principle B states that a …show more content…
Jones has been unable to arrange for a private social worker for Mr. Albertson, and is quite possibly not being paid for her services. As described in the principles of the Ethics Code a lack of financing should not cause a psychologist to disregard a clients’ welfare and rights. Standard 6.04 d states that if finances limit available services this issue must be discussed immediately. In the case of Mr. Albertson his inability to comprehend this concepts leads to a larger issue. As standard 10.09 indicates Mr. Albertson’s welfare exceeds his contractual obligation to pay for services. Services cannot be terminated until more appropriate or alternate services are available, as confirmed by standard 10.10 terminating services. Furthermore the termination of the therapist/client relationship in this case is not in the best interest of Mr. Albertson. “For many clients, the experience of parting with the therapeutic atmosphere in which they are acknowledged, accepted, and validated unconditionally while mitigating life circumstances can range from hopeful to anxiety provoking.” (Lenz, 2012,