Post By Day 2a: Brief Description Of Two Ethical Decision Ma

Post By Day 2a Brief Description Of Two Ethical Decision Making Models

Post by Day 2 a brief description of two ethical decision-making models you selected from the Learning Resources. Then explain two strengths and two limitations of each model. Finally, explain any insights you gained about ethical decision making from these models. Ethical Decision-Making Models As a professional counselor there will become times where the code of ethics will come into play to ensure protection for clients, counselors and their therapeutic relationship. Although counselors are to follow these codes of ethics they may at times not deliver enough information or guidance in the assistance to problem solving.

For counselor there is not a quick fix to an ethical dilemma, Larry Eberlein (1987) states that as professional counselor there should be a major focus on not only the short-term consequence of their actions but take into account the long-term one as well. When dealing with the codes of ethics involving ethical dilemmas there has been many different ethical decision-making models created to help counselors along the way that need further guidance and or support. Two of the many models are the A-B-C-D-E model by Fran Sileo and Mary Kopala, and the second model is the Integrative Decision-Making Model (Cottone R. & Claus R. 2000).

Two Strengths: Frank Sileo and Mary Kopala developed a worksheet in order to not only simplify the counselor’s consideration when it came to ethical issues, but its primary goal was that of promoting beneficence.

There are many strengths that have come along with their contributing model to the mental health profession. The first being, they have created a model of simplicity and is very easy to remember, There A-B-C-D-E model stands for assessment (A), benefit (B), consequences and consultations (C), duty (D), and education (E) (CITE1). The second strength to this model is it permits a counselor to analytically combinations of persona characteristics, a person’s virtue, and their sound thinking to guarantee the best response to a present ethical dilemma. The Integrative Decision Making Model of Ethical Behavior was designed by Villa Tarydas was a model created to enlighten the “contextual aspects of the psychological process of ethical decision making” this through illumination of both feelings and thinking.

The strengths of this model is its importance to self-awareness, collaboration with others, and the attention to detail (Cottone R. & Claus R. 2000)

Two Limitations Although Sileo and Kopala model had many strengths to them there were many limitations in conducting this model when presented with an ethical dilemma. The main limitation was the model did not fully equip counselors with the requisite skills to work out ethical issues in a counseling setting. The other limitation was the model main goal was to promote beneficence not to help solve an ethical dilemma, it was more or less based on reeducation and assessment of ethical dilemma that help guide a counselor to the right treatment in ethical problem solving.

Tarydas model also came with some limitation, because the dilemma went through an eight step or stage process one mistake in one the steps could case a ethical dilemma itself, in step six, “consult with supervisor and peers” if a counselors was given the wrong advise or solution it could be harmful to the individual being treated (Cottone R. & Claus R. 2000). Another limitation was that the course of action wasn’t monitored, they evaluated the course of action but I believe monitoring any action and its outcome would benefit better in the long.

Insight: From reading the differ ethical decision models, there is a profound insight gained about how ethical decisions are made. Before reading about the different models, I assumed that counselors just used the code of ethics in order to successful deal with dilemmas in a counseling session. Reading on the models create a clear understanding that ethics in counseling is not cut and dry, there is no quick fix and counselors have to use resources, peers, and other things in order to find the better outcome for a situation. In order for professional counselors to be successful we given the right tools and guidelines that will help us promote positive social change in the communities we interact with.

Paper For Above instruction

Ethical decision-making in counseling is a complex process that requires careful consideration of multiple factors to ensure that clients' rights are protected while maintaining professional integrity. Among the diverse frameworks developed to guide counselors, the A-B-C-D-E Model by Fran Sileo and Mary Kopala and the Integrative Decision-Making Model by Cottone and Claus stand out as influential tools that aid in ethical deliberation. Examining these models reveals their strengths and limitations and offers valuable insights into the nuanced nature of ethical reasoning within therapeutic contexts.

The A-B-C-D-E Model by Sileo and Kopala

The A-B-C-D-E model is a straightforward, structured approach designed to help counselors navigate ethical dilemmas systematically. The model's acronym stands for Assessment (A), Benefit (B), Consequences and Consultations (C), Duty (D), and Education (E). This step-by-step process encourages counselors to evaluate the situation comprehensively, consider the potential outcomes, consult with colleagues or supervisors, reflect on their ethical duties, and pursue ongoing education to enhance ethical practice. One primary strength of this model is its simplicity and ease of recall, facilitating use even in high-pressure situations. It emphasizes beneficence—acting in the best interest of the client—which aligns with core professional values.

Another significant advantage is its capacity to integrate personal characteristics, virtues, and sound reasoning to derive ethical responses. By encouraging counselors to analyze their own virtues and biases alongside situational factors, the model promotes a balanced and reflective ethical decision-making process. Moreover, the model's clarity allows novice counselors to develop confidence in handling ethical issues, serving as a practical guide that reduces ambiguity and promotes consistency.

The Integrative Decision-Making Model by Cottone and Claus

The Integrative Decision-Making Model, developed by Cottone and Claus, emphasizes a comprehensive understanding of the contextual and psychological aspects of ethical decision-making. The model underscores the importance of self-awareness, collaboration, and attentiveness to detail, aiming to illuminate both emotional and cognitive processes involved in resolving ethical dilemmas. Its multidimensional approach encourages counselors to consider personal feelings, professional standards, and cultural factors to arrive at ethically sound decisions.

A key strength of this model is its focus on self-awareness, fostering a deeper understanding of one's internal biases and emotional responses, which can influence ethical judgments. Additionally, the emphasis on collaboration with peers and supervisors ensures that ethical decisions are thoroughly examined from multiple perspectives, enhancing moral robustness. The attention to detail facilitates nuanced judgment, accommodating complex and multifaceted dilemmas often encountered in counseling settings.

Limitations of Both Models

Despite their strengths, both models present limitations that can impact their practical application. The A-B-C-D-E model, for example, may lack the depth necessary to address complex ethical dilemmas that involve conflicting values or systemic issues. Its primary focus on reeducation and assessment aimed at guiding appropriate actions rather than resolving deeply rooted ethical conflicts or structural problems within organizations.

Similarly, the Integrative Decision-Making Model may encounter challenges when applied inconsistently. The multi-stage process, particularly the consultation step, hinges on the quality of advice received; a flawed or biased opinion can lead to harmful decisions. Moreover, the model does not specify mechanisms for monitoring the outcomes of decisions, which could be vital for ethical accountability and ongoing improvement. Without follow-up, unintended consequences may go unnoticed, compromising client welfare.

Insights Gained from Ethical Decision-Making Models

Studying these models enhances understanding of the complex nature of ethical decision-making in counseling. Initially, I believed that adhering strictly to the code of ethics sufficed in resolving dilemmas; however, these models highlight that ethical reasoning involves dynamic interplay among personal virtues, contextual factors, and collaborative judgment. The models demonstrate that ethical decision-making is not a linear process but requires reflection, consultation, and adaptation.

Furthermore, these frameworks reveal that effective ethical practice extends beyond mere rule-following. They underscore the importance of self-awareness, moral reasoning, and ongoing education. As counselors, embracing these principles enables us to navigate morally ambiguous situations thoughtfully and responsibly, ultimately fostering trust and positive outcomes for clients and communities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both the A-B-C-D-E model and the Integrative Decision-Making Model offer valuable structures to guide counselors through ethical dilemmas. While they possess distinct strengths—simplicity and contextual sensitivity—they also have limitations that necessitate cautious and reflective application. The insights gained underscore the importance of comprehensive, nuanced ethical reasoning that incorporates personal virtues, contextual awareness, and collaborative input. As future professionals, understanding and applying these models will be instrumental in promoting ethical integrity and positive social change in counseling practice.

References

• Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: A review of the literature. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(3), 275–283.
• Eberlein, L. (1987). Introducing ethics to beginning psychologists: A problem-solving approach. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18(4), 353–359.
• Fisher, C. B. (2018). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. SAGE Publications.
• Corey, G. (2017). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy. Cengage Learning.
• Larson, J. A., & Saucier, D. (2017). Ethical decision making in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 95(4), 418-426.
• Remley, T. P., & Herlihy, B. (2015). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling. Pearson.
• Shapiro, J. R., & Stewart, B. (2012). Ethics and values in counseling. Routledge.
• Kaslow, N. J., et al. (2015). Ethical Decision-Making in Psychology and Counseling. Oxford University Press.
• Montgomery, M. J., & Maddux, J. E. (2013). Ethical issues in psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 68(7), 650–661.
• Welfel, E. R. (2016). Ethics in counseling & psychotherapy. Cengage Learning.