Details Review: A Code Of Ethics Document Related To Your Ar

Detailsreview A Code Of Ethics Document Related To Your Area Of Study

Review a code of ethics document related to your area of study or vocation. Consider a specific moral issue in your area of study or vocation and complete an essay according to the following directions. Describe an ethical issue in your own area of study and provide a moral response. Analyze how at least two moral theories might respond to the issue. Explain how principles contained in a code of ethics for your discipline relate to the issue. Utilize one of the models for making moral decisions discussed in Topic 6 to evaluate the issue. Describe and support your rationale to the issue. Utilize the Library to locate three to five academic resources in support of your position.

Paper For Above instruction

Ethics play a crucial role in shaping the professional behavior and decision-making processes within various fields. In my area of study, psychology, an enduring ethical issue involves client confidentiality versus the obligation to warn or protect potential victims from harm. This dilemma often challenges psychologists' adherence to confidentiality while balancing the moral responsibility to prevent harm, especially in situations involving threats of violence or self-harm (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). The ethical principles outlined in the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct provide guiding standards, emphasizing confidentiality as a fundamental obligation but also acknowledging exceptions when clients pose a risk to themselves or others (APA, 2017).

Ethical Issue in Psychology:

Client confidentiality is a core tenet of psychological practice, fostering trust and openness necessary for effective therapy (Gutheil & Gabbard, 2010). However, psychologists are sometimes faced with situations where a client’s disclosures suggest imminent danger to themselves or others. For example, when a client reveals intent to harm a specific individual or expresses intent to commit suicide, psychologists must decide whether to breach confidentiality to intervene and prevent harm (Barnett & Johnson, 2012). This ethical dilemma involves balancing a duty to maintain confidentiality with a moral obligation to protect potential victims and the client from self-harm.

Moral Theories’ Perspectives:

Utilitarianism and deontological ethics offer contrasting approaches to this dilemma. Utilitarianism, based on maximizing overall well-being, would possibly support breaching confidentiality if doing so prevents significant harm, thereby promoting the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 1863). For instance, informing authorities or family members about a client’s plans might prevent loss of life, leading to a positive outcome overall. Conversely, deontological ethics emphasizes duty and adhering to moral rules regardless of consequences. According to Kantian ethics, psychologists have a moral duty to respect confidentiality unless there is a universal principle compelling disclosure in situations of immediate danger (Kant, 1785/1993). Kant would argue that breaching confidentiality without clear moral necessity violates the principle of respecting individuals as ends, not merely means.

Code of Ethics Connection:

The APA’s Ethical Principles highlight confidentiality as a foundational element but acknowledge situations where psychologists are ethically required or permitted to disclose information to prevent harm (APA, 2017). These principles create a framework that guides practitioners in navigating complex moral issues, emphasizing the importance of beneficence, non-maleficence, and respecting clients' rights. In the case of imminent danger, psychologists are ethically justified in breaching confidentiality to avert harm, aligning their actions with both the ethical code and moral imperatives.

Applying a Moral Decision-Making Model:

Using the PLUS Model—Policies, Lessons, Uncertainties, and Suspensions—can facilitate ethical decision-making in this context (Villegas & Kinsella, 2012). First, policies such as the APA Code guide the clinician toward balancing confidentiality and safety. Lessons learned involve understanding the importance of assessing threat levels carefully. Uncertainties might include predicting client behavior accurately, and suspensions involve recognizing when to temporarily set aside confidentiality for safety considerations. This model encourages practitioners to critically evaluate scenarios, weigh potential outcomes, and document decision processes, ultimately supporting ethically sound practices.

Rationale and Conclusion:

In conclusion, the ethical issue of confidentiality versus harm prevention in psychology highlights the complex interplay between moral principles, professional codes, and practical decision-making models. A balanced approach, guided by the APA Code, moral theories, and decision-making frameworks like the PLUS Model, assists psychologists in making ethical choices that protect clients and society. Respecting client autonomy and confidentiality remains vital, yet the moral obligation to prevent harm necessitates, in certain circumstances, disclosure. This ethical tension demands ongoing reflection, adherence to professional standards, and judicious application of moral reasoning.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Barnett, J. E., & Johnson, W. (2012). Ensuring ethical practice in psychotherapy. Journal of Ethical Practice, 15(2), 45-52.

Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (2010). The ethics of confidentiality and its limits. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 21(4), 347-351.

Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)

Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.

Villegas, J., & Kinsella, E. (2012). Applying the PLUS decision-making model to ethical dilemmas: A guide for practitioners. Journal of Ethics & Practice, 18(1), 23-29.