Principle IV outlines that psychologists have a responsibility to society. Two standards relate to the vignette under review. By accepting the date, and choosing to have a relationship with the father – although not a client – the psychologist is not upholding the highest standards of the discipline because she did not take precautions to avoid doing harm to the child which was her client (Standard IV.10, p. 30). The last relevant ethical standard is that psychologists must consider “the laws and regulations of the societies in which they work, especially those that are related to their activities as psychologists...” (Standard IV.17, p. 30). This standard applies to the vignette because the psychologist needs to consider whether her relationships
…show more content…
These feelings make impact future judgments towards the child and the course of treatment.
In the vignette, the psychologist accepts a dinner offer and pursues a relationship with the client’s father. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how her actions were unethical and provide an alternate solution with the most favourable outcome for all parties involved. Step four and five in the decision-making model is to outline alternate courses of action and potential negative and positive consequences for each alternative. Three alternative courses of action are presented. Each course of action focuses on the psychologist decision to accept the client’s father’s dinner offer.
The first course of action (Alternative 1) would be expressing to the father that accepting a date constitutes unprofessional behaviour and is considered a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the psychologist would need to politely decline and explain that she has the best interest of her client in mind (i.e., the boy). The psychologist would not seek a personal relationship with the father if the child is her client. If the psychologist’s feelings risk impacting her therapeutic relationship with the boy and his family, she should seek counsel from colleagues. Two positive consequences of this course of action are (1) there is no conflict of interest and (2) the psychologist acts in accordance with the Code. Two negative …show more content…
The psychologist is aware that her feelings towards the client’s father will impact her ability to effectively treat her client and maintain a therapeutic relationship with the boy. She would seek counsel from colleagues and pass the client on to another competent psychologist in order to pursue a relationship with the client’s father. Possible positive consequences are (1) that the psychologist can date the father without having a conflict of interest or a dual relationship and (2) the child receives the necessary services by a competent psychologist. Possible negative consequences of this course of action are (1) that the romantic relationship does not work; (2) the psychologist reputation for passing on a client for personal gains; (3) the child’s reactions to the new psychologist may be negative; (4) the psychologist is losing a client; and (5) there may be miscommunications between herself and the new
These feelings make impact future judgments towards the child and the course of treatment.
In the vignette, the psychologist accepts a dinner offer and pursues a relationship with the client’s father. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how her actions were unethical and provide an alternate solution with the most favourable outcome for all parties involved. Step four and five in the decision-making model is to outline alternate courses of action and potential negative and positive consequences for each alternative. Three alternative courses of action are presented. Each course of action focuses on the psychologist decision to accept the client’s father’s dinner offer.
The first course of action (Alternative 1) would be expressing to the father that accepting a date constitutes unprofessional behaviour and is considered a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the psychologist would need to politely decline and explain that she has the best interest of her client in mind (i.e., the boy). The psychologist would not seek a personal relationship with the father if the child is her client. If the psychologist’s feelings risk impacting her therapeutic relationship with the boy and his family, she should seek counsel from colleagues. Two positive consequences of this course of action are (1) there is no conflict of interest and (2) the psychologist acts in accordance with the Code. Two negative …show more content…
The psychologist is aware that her feelings towards the client’s father will impact her ability to effectively treat her client and maintain a therapeutic relationship with the boy. She would seek counsel from colleagues and pass the client on to another competent psychologist in order to pursue a relationship with the client’s father. Possible positive consequences are (1) that the psychologist can date the father without having a conflict of interest or a dual relationship and (2) the child receives the necessary services by a competent psychologist. Possible negative consequences of this course of action are (1) that the romantic relationship does not work; (2) the psychologist reputation for passing on a client for personal gains; (3) the child’s reactions to the new psychologist may be negative; (4) the psychologist is losing a client; and (5) there may be miscommunications between herself and the new