Friday, January 25, 2008
Non-Sexual Dual Relationships - Surveys
A survey was conducted of 4,800 psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers to determine their ethical attitudes and practices towards dual relationships It was determined that most of those surveyed believed that dual role behaviors were unethical in most circumstances and most reported that they had rarely, if ever, engaged in such behavior. This being said, "sexual and nonsexual relationships form the major basis of financial losses in malpractice suits, licensing disciplinary actions, and ethics complaints against psychologists (Ethics Committee of the APA,".
The survey conducted by Pope and Borys examined eighteen dual relationship situations that are common among health professionals:
1. Accepting a gift worth under $10.
2. Accepting a client's invitation to a special occasion.
3. Accepting a service or product as payment for therapy.
4. Becoming friends with a client after termination.
5. Selling a product to a client.
6. Accepting a gift worth over $50.
7. Providing therapy to an employee.
8. Engaging in sexual activity with a client after termination.
9. Disclosing details of current personal stresses to a client.
10. Inviting clients to an office/clinic open house.
11. Employing a client.
12. Going out to eat with a client after a session.
13. Buying goods or services from a client.
14. Engaging in sexual activity with a client.
15. Inviting clients to a personal party or social event.
16. Providing individual therapy to a relative, friend, or lover of an ongoing client.
17. Providing therapy to a current student or supervisee.
18. Allowing a client to enroll in one's class for a grade.
The above situations are common among health professionals, but even more so among health professionals in certain situations, particularly settings where dual relationships exist naturally. As mentioned previously, this often occurs in small rural communities, military settings, and residential alcohol and drug treatment programs. In these settings therapists are forced into relationships that according to the definition of dual relationships in the code of ethics would be considered unethical. For example, active duty military psychologists fulfill dual roles as therapists and commissioned military officers, which means that they not only have a professional duty to their clients, but also to the military or Department of Defense.
For this reason, many professionals have called for further clarification of the definition of dual relationships. In a study conducted by Kenneth Pope, a leading expert in the field of ethics, and Valerie Vetter a random sample of 1,319 members of the American Psychological Association were asked to describe incidents that they found ethically troublesome. Their intention was to gather information that might be useful in considering possible revisions of the code.
Their report produced the following statement from Pope and Vetter regarding dual relationships:
A national survey of psychologists resulted in a call for changes to the APA ethical principles in the areas of dual relationships, multiple relationships, and boundary issues so that the ethics code would:
(1) define dual relationships more carefully and specify clearly conditions under which they might be therapeutically indicated or acceptable,
(2) address clearly and realistically the situations of those who practice in small towns, rural communities, remote locales, and similar contexts (emphasizing that neither the current code in place at the time nor the draft revision under consideration at that time fully acknowledged or adequately addressed such contexts), and
(3) distinguish between dual relationships and accidental or incidental extra-therapeutic contacts (e.g., running into a patient at the grocery market or unexpectedly seeing a client at a party) and to address realistically the awkward entanglements into which even the most careful therapist can fall.
The survey conducted by Pope and Borys examined eighteen dual relationship situations that are common among health professionals:
1. Accepting a gift worth under $10.
2. Accepting a client's invitation to a special occasion.
3. Accepting a service or product as payment for therapy.
4. Becoming friends with a client after termination.
5. Selling a product to a client.
6. Accepting a gift worth over $50.
7. Providing therapy to an employee.
8. Engaging in sexual activity with a client after termination.
9. Disclosing details of current personal stresses to a client.
10. Inviting clients to an office/clinic open house.
11. Employing a client.
12. Going out to eat with a client after a session.
13. Buying goods or services from a client.
14. Engaging in sexual activity with a client.
15. Inviting clients to a personal party or social event.
16. Providing individual therapy to a relative, friend, or lover of an ongoing client.
17. Providing therapy to a current student or supervisee.
18. Allowing a client to enroll in one's class for a grade.
The above situations are common among health professionals, but even more so among health professionals in certain situations, particularly settings where dual relationships exist naturally. As mentioned previously, this often occurs in small rural communities, military settings, and residential alcohol and drug treatment programs. In these settings therapists are forced into relationships that according to the definition of dual relationships in the code of ethics would be considered unethical. For example, active duty military psychologists fulfill dual roles as therapists and commissioned military officers, which means that they not only have a professional duty to their clients, but also to the military or Department of Defense.
For this reason, many professionals have called for further clarification of the definition of dual relationships. In a study conducted by Kenneth Pope, a leading expert in the field of ethics, and Valerie Vetter a random sample of 1,319 members of the American Psychological Association were asked to describe incidents that they found ethically troublesome. Their intention was to gather information that might be useful in considering possible revisions of the code.
Their report produced the following statement from Pope and Vetter regarding dual relationships:
A national survey of psychologists resulted in a call for changes to the APA ethical principles in the areas of dual relationships, multiple relationships, and boundary issues so that the ethics code would:
(1) define dual relationships more carefully and specify clearly conditions under which they might be therapeutically indicated or acceptable,
(2) address clearly and realistically the situations of those who practice in small towns, rural communities, remote locales, and similar contexts (emphasizing that neither the current code in place at the time nor the draft revision under consideration at that time fully acknowledged or adequately addressed such contexts), and
(3) distinguish between dual relationships and accidental or incidental extra-therapeutic contacts (e.g., running into a patient at the grocery market or unexpectedly seeing a client at a party) and to address realistically the awkward entanglements into which even the most careful therapist can fall.
Labels: Dual-Relationships
