Ethical Issue or violation #1
Dr. Lash is thinking about starting a sexual relationship with his former client Nan Carlin, whom he counseled in a group therapy ten years ago, she was in the middle of a bad marriage and seeking help. Consequently, Nan was vulnerable when Dr. Lash entered her life. Because of the therapist/client relationship, Dr. Lash will always be an intimate part of her healing.
ACA Code of Ethics A.5.c prohibits sexual or romantic relationships with former clients for five years following the last professional contact. This code counsels the therapist to demonstrate forethought and document whether the interaction or relationship viewed as exploitive in any way and whether there is still potential to harm the former client, …show more content…
This extension occurred consecutively; firstly he was the therapist, then he turned into a business partner. Marshal had already refused his client’s monetary and gift donations, stating that it would be unethical of him to receive this and that Peter’s gratitude was enough. After agreeing to a farewell luncheon with his now former client, he was offered to financially invest $90,000.00 in Peter’s company as a partner, Marshal eventually gave in to temptation and agreed to the proposal, thus extending the boundary of relationship.
ACA Code of Ethics A.6.b “purchasing a service or product provided by a client,”
ACA Code of Ethics A.6.c “they must officially document, prior to the interaction the rationale for such an interaction, the potential benefit, and anticipated consequences for the client or former client.” Marshal did not document the situation he was about to enter.
In Marshal’s case, he was the victim; he let his greed for money and prestige cloud his judgment and consequently was taken advantage of by his client. Not only did he lose money but also his reputation and position on the ethics board. Peter is a scam artist who fabricated his issues so there was no harm to …show more content…
The therapist has the power, knowing the inner workings of their clients, which can be used against them for personal gain. From a positive perspective, if a client is struggling emotionally and finds themselves in a situation where they can no longer afford therapy, the client could offer their services in lieu of payment, then bartering becomes a positive solution for the client, as justified by Seth Pande’s account with his client the architect.
Nonmaleficence is described by Kitchener to do no harm. If the therapist were to exploit their position in bartering by taking advantage of their position over their client, then it would harm the relationship with the client.
I believe Seth Pande was justified to barter with his client; he believed the ethical principle of nonmaleficence and beneficence for his client outweighed the potential harm. He knew if he were to stop therapy the client would be harmed, the progress made by his client up to that point would be reversed.
I could see a situation where a football coach could barter with the school counselor for his quarterback to get permission continue playing despite his fall in academic standards. The coach could barter bus duties with the counselor in return signing off for the quarterback to continue playing in the upcoming game. This situation is more serious than that of Seth Pande’s as there is no positive outcome for the student only
Dr. Lash is thinking about starting a sexual relationship with his former client Nan Carlin, whom he counseled in a group therapy ten years ago, she was in the middle of a bad marriage and seeking help. Consequently, Nan was vulnerable when Dr. Lash entered her life. Because of the therapist/client relationship, Dr. Lash will always be an intimate part of her healing.
ACA Code of Ethics A.5.c prohibits sexual or romantic relationships with former clients for five years following the last professional contact. This code counsels the therapist to demonstrate forethought and document whether the interaction or relationship viewed as exploitive in any way and whether there is still potential to harm the former client, …show more content…
This extension occurred consecutively; firstly he was the therapist, then he turned into a business partner. Marshal had already refused his client’s monetary and gift donations, stating that it would be unethical of him to receive this and that Peter’s gratitude was enough. After agreeing to a farewell luncheon with his now former client, he was offered to financially invest $90,000.00 in Peter’s company as a partner, Marshal eventually gave in to temptation and agreed to the proposal, thus extending the boundary of relationship.
ACA Code of Ethics A.6.b “purchasing a service or product provided by a client,”
ACA Code of Ethics A.6.c “they must officially document, prior to the interaction the rationale for such an interaction, the potential benefit, and anticipated consequences for the client or former client.” Marshal did not document the situation he was about to enter.
In Marshal’s case, he was the victim; he let his greed for money and prestige cloud his judgment and consequently was taken advantage of by his client. Not only did he lose money but also his reputation and position on the ethics board. Peter is a scam artist who fabricated his issues so there was no harm to …show more content…
The therapist has the power, knowing the inner workings of their clients, which can be used against them for personal gain. From a positive perspective, if a client is struggling emotionally and finds themselves in a situation where they can no longer afford therapy, the client could offer their services in lieu of payment, then bartering becomes a positive solution for the client, as justified by Seth Pande’s account with his client the architect.
Nonmaleficence is described by Kitchener to do no harm. If the therapist were to exploit their position in bartering by taking advantage of their position over their client, then it would harm the relationship with the client.
I believe Seth Pande was justified to barter with his client; he believed the ethical principle of nonmaleficence and beneficence for his client outweighed the potential harm. He knew if he were to stop therapy the client would be harmed, the progress made by his client up to that point would be reversed.
I could see a situation where a football coach could barter with the school counselor for his quarterback to get permission continue playing despite his fall in academic standards. The coach could barter bus duties with the counselor in return signing off for the quarterback to continue playing in the upcoming game. This situation is more serious than that of Seth Pande’s as there is no positive outcome for the student only