Eye on Psi Chi Winter 2012 : Page 11part, “When psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate.” According to this standard, going to see Dr. Beedo and sharing our concerns looks like a good idea. However, sex with clients is so serious and potentially harmful (Pope, 2002) that an informal resolution is inappropriate. Th is is covered in Standard 1.05, which tells us, in part: If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person…and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04… psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation. Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities. According to this part of Standard 1.05, we should report this alleged violation, right? Most of my beginning ethics students want to report Dr. Beedo, perhaps out of a sense of duty and/or moral outrage. However, there’s one more surprise in store: the principle of confi dentiality. Joan shared this information as a psychotherapy client, and we are therefore obligated to maintain her confi dentiality—to keep what she says private. Th e next statement in Standard 1.05 reads: “Th is standard does not apply when an intervention would violate confi dentiality rights.” Th is confi dentiality element also applies to Standard 1.04. Our obligation to maintain confi dentiality is so important that it outweighs our obligation to report in this case. We cannot even share the identity of our client without her consent, and we cannot report Dr. Beedo anonymously because there would be no way for a committee or board to investigate without violating confi dentiality. But, can we speak with Dr. Beedo and just say, “One of your clients has accused you of sexual misconduct”? Th e answer is no because we would still be using information we obtained in a confi dential relationship. It’s possible, for example, that this client was the only one with whom Dr. Beedo had sex. Th us, we would be breaching confi dentiality by disclosing the identity of our client. Th en what can we do? One crucial action would be to discuss with the client her options of fi ling ethical and/or legal complaints. However, we would be careful not to put undue pressure on her to take action because our primary concern is the welfare of our clients. Many students are frustrated at this point in the discussion—they would like to take action to protect other potential victims and see that justice is served. I use students’ frustration to help them understand how critical confi dentiality is in establishing a trusting psychotherapeutic relationship. Driscoll (1992) referred to confi dentiality as a “sacred trust” (p. 704). However, there are exceptions even to such an important principle as confi dentiality. In some situations therapists are obligated to break confi dentiality. We’ll be exploring these exceptions to the principle of confi dentiality in future columns. References Cottone, R. R. (2012). Ethical decision making in mental health contexts: Representative models and an organizational framework. In S. Knapp, M. Gottlieb, M. M. Handelsman, & L. VandeCreek (Eds.), APA handbook of ethics in psychology: Vol. 1. Moral Foundations and Common Themes (pp. 99–121). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Driscoll, J. M. (1992). Keeping covenants and confi dences sacred: One point of view. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70 , 704–708. Pope, K. S. (2002). Sex between therapists and clients. In J. Worell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender: Vol. 2 (pp. 955–962). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 2012 Calendar January 14 | Deadline Submissions to Rocky Mountain Regional Convention January 15 | Deadline SWPA Travel Grant February 1 | Deadline APA Newman Graduate Research Award APS Albert Bandura Graduate Research Award Cousins National Chapter Award Graduate Research Grants SEPA Travel Grants Society offi cer election ballots sent to the chapters Undergraduate Research Grants February 15 | Deadline Deadline for Society offi cer election ballots Summer 2012 Eye on Psi Chi submissions WPA Travel Grant February 15–18 | SEPA Convention Southeastern Region, New Orleans, LA March 1 | Deadline APS Summer Research Grant CUR Summer Research Grant SRCD Summer Research Grant Summer Research Grants March 1–4 | EPA Convention Eastern Region, Pittsburgh, PA March 15 | Deadline RMPA Travel Grants April 1 | Deadline Kay Wilson Leadership Award April 12–14 | SWPA Convention Southwestern Region, Oklahoma City, OK April 12–14 | RMPA Convention Rocky Mountain Region, Reno, NV April 26–29 | WPA Convention Western Region, San Francisco– Burlingame, CA May 1 | Deadline Allyn & Bacon Psychology Awards Guilford Undergraduate Research Awards May 3–5 | MPA Convention Midwestern Region, Chicago, IL May 24–27 | APS Convention APS National Convention, Chicago, IL COPYRIGHT © 2012 PSI CHI WINTER 2012 | EYE ON PSI CHI 11 Publication List |
