Compassion is certainly a cornerstone of a good therapist. I completely agree. Maybe it's my "Inner Bowen" coming out, but compassion is a feeling. Ethics concern behavior. Ah yes, but where do ethics come from? How do they arise? They arise from a feeling as to how humans “feel” they should treat their fellow humans. To some people it “feels good” to harm people. I believe that there is good in humanity and that the vast majority of humans “feel” that we should treat others with respect. From how human beings “feel” is the correct way to behave, come ethics. This began with the ancients sitting around campfires to make their tribal ethics and laws, to discuss openly how they feel their fellow tribal members should treat each other. Yes ethics concern behavior, and those behaviors are derived from and encompassed by feelings. From feelings come ethics, from ethics come laws. You can’t completely separate feelings from ethics; were there no human emotion, there would be no ethics and no laws. And no mental health professionals. Therapy is a process governed by a contract. An exchange of services for money. You brought up the idea of informed consent. Informed consent solidifies the contract. Are we to say that our relationships with paying clients at work, and our relationship with strangers on our block contain the same ethical requirements? How can that possibly be allowed? Not the same ethical requirements. Similar. The NASW Code of ethics clearly details this. As does the APA ethics codes. And the AMA. How could you not know this as a mental health professional? This is what every student in grad school is taught. Just about every professional body has codes of ethics and in those codes just about every one of them has a separate section which describes the professionals ethical duties to both clients that they are engaged with, and also to greater society, people of the general public whom they are not involved in a contractual relationship with. They are not the same, they are similar. I maintain that ethical standards relate to professional behavior, not private feelings about a non-client. This is where (I believe) you are misguided. I suggest that you re read your APA codes of ethics so that you may understand them better. If Monica were to attempt to use her position to deny treatment at the only substance abuse center in town, you might have an argument there. I didn't get that from her original post. Well apparently the Judge and prosecutor felt that the agencey where she works at is the best place for him to get anger managment and domestic counseling. However Monica is attempting to subvert the courts decision because it is not to her liking, and that is wrong. In my opinion. Especially since the man is not her client. So the man should get second rate counseling because she wants him to? I don't agree. She said – “…but I don't even want him to be at the other site. She believes we can make him have to get services at another agency…” The problem is here that she already has demonstrated that she is biased against diseased alcholics. For what ever reason. When her behavior in this regard affects people getting assistance that's where there is a problem. The other concern is, and I mentioned it earlier, is if she has this kind of attitude towards her neighbors whom she sees every day, it is bound to affect the way she conducts counseling in her own practice. So in a sense her personal life and beliefs and values are a reflection as to how she performs with clients whom she is involved in contractual relationships with. That is one of the many reasons why ethically speaking, mental health professionals need to be concerned as to the way they behave in the general public. And if she has issues in this regard she herself needs to seek assistance to help resolve these inner conflicts so that it will not affect her work with her paying clients. There are provisions for that in all the mental health ethics codes as well. This is nothing new, it has been discussed time and time again by every professional mental health organization. She said that she did not want the sick person to get treatment from the other branch of her agency. At any rate what if the man can get better assistance from the other branch? Or even Monica's branch? And one across town may not have the kind of domestic counseling program that he needs? You see it is really not right for this social worker to get involved in who the man can or can not see for counseling. That’s wrong and is a behavioral act on the social workers part. What I got is her frustration and fear at being victimized by this violent drug addict, I got her frustration over the dynamics of abusing relationships (which I think many of us have felt in our careers). I got her humanity, her worry about this man being in her workplace. Yes I agree with you, I got all of that from her post. I would be fearful about being victimized too. But just because I am victimized, that does not mean that I am going to go out and victimize the person who victimized me. The cycle of victimization has to stop somewhere and if it can’t stop with people who are mental health professionals then I certainly do not know where it will stop. I'd also like to add that compassion for a drug addict does NOT include condoning violence, threats, breaking the law, etc. Ask anyone who does drug and alcohol counseling: these clients must be held accountable for their behavior. Justifying his violence toward his girlfriend as being "sick" and "in need of compassion" is only acceptable to the point in which he takes personal responsibility for his actions and their consequences. He's already shown a willingness to violate Monica's rights and threaten her. How much does she have to risk, especially if there is equitable treatment elsewhere? I never said I condoned violence or threats. I also don’t condone one person preventing another person from getting assistance that would help him or her to learn why it is wrong to threaten anyone and prevent a person from getting good advice and learning skills as to how to better and more effectively handle anger. Isn’t that what one of the main proposes of psychotherapy and counseling are? Sure violent people need to be held accountable, and that is a job for the police, not social workers. Not psychologists or psychiatrists. Unless of course they are deputized. And the person who needs counseling to learn how to accept personal responsibility for his actions, if you really believe that the man needs it, should behoove you to believe that social workers should not attempt to prevent such people from getting that assistance. The original poster does not have to risk anything, the man could go to the other building where she does not work. Where do you draw the line? Would you have the man leave the state to get counseling because it is to monicas liking? It's not a conflicct of interest if this man sees a therapist that may be a friend of Monica's. Monica may not like the idea of the man talking about the situation, to an associate, but it's not a conflic of interest as long as the social workers do follow confidentiality laws and the therapist seeing him at the other building does not tell Monica or anyone else about it. If Monica has a problem with believing that this is a confliect of interest, then that would indicate that social workers at this agencey do gossip and trade private client records, and that the problem is really with the agencey and not with the man. And this concern should be addressed internally, not in the courts. It's not ethical to drag the courts and a man into a legal battle because people where she works can't keep their lips sealed about private client records. After all why would Monica think it is a "coflict of interest" for this man to come to her agencey? Conflicts of interest usually concern confidentality issues or monetary issues. The title of the original post is "Conflict of Interest?", not "I am scared of this man". Therapeutic compassion does not include enabling a violent offender, giving him access to a previous victim, or giving up your private life. I agree. And this being the case, it is not right for the social worker to "disable" him getting counseling in a agencey where the court feels he should get it. The social worker here is attempting to subevert the judges decision as to where she or he feels is the best place to get counseling. In this case Therapeutic compassion does not apply because Monica is not the man’s therapist. Compassion to the general public does apply. You see even you are confusing the boundaries here too because first you say that Monica is not responsible for ethical behavior because she is not the mans therapist and then you talk about Monicas therapeutic compassion for the man. So even you are confused as to whether or not Monica is this mans therapist.
That’s the problem you get into when a mental health worker interjects her or himself into these situations, the boundaries get very blurred.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.