Comparison of codes of ethics for professional counselors
Abstract
This article analyzes the differences between the codes of ethics presented by three professional advice organizations; The American Counseling Association, the American Association of Christian Counselors, and the American Association of Pastoral Counselors. The article examines the differences in organization membership, the resulting differences in the organizations’ code of ethics, and discusses a missing element in each code.
General observations on the three Codes
The codes discussed below were published by the American Counseling Association (ACA, 2005), the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC, 2004), and the American Association of Pastoral Counselors (AAPC, 1993).
The ACA Code of Ethics is reviewed every 10 years and was last revised in 2005. The code has eight sections: The Counseling Relationship, Confidentiality, Professional Responsibility, Relationships with Other Professionals, Evaluations, Supervision, and training, research and resolution of ethical issues. counseling today summarized recent changes to the Code to include: increased emphasis on multiculturalism; allow dual relationships if it includes potentially beneficial interactions; increased acceptable use of technology in research, record keeping, and counselling; more detailed language on counselor disability and client transfer; and lastly, changes to various terms, but not meaning as an example, “tests” are now called “assessments”. (Highlights of the ACA Code of Ethics, 2005)
The AACC code was finalized in 2004 after 10 years and 4 provisional codes. This is the longest of the three codes. The main sections of the Code are: the applicability of the code, the introduction and the mission statement, the basic biblical principles, the ethical norms and the rules of procedure. The ethical standards section is divided between the different categories of members. The AACC Code includes the longer section on dispute resolution and complaint handling.
The AAPC is the shortest of the three codes. The code was last revised in 1993, at which time the procedure section was separated from the Code of Ethics (Beck, 1997). The Code has seven sections: prologue, professional practices, client relations, confidentiality, relations with the supervisee, student and employee, interprofessional relations and publicity.
Background of the organizations
The ACA, AACC, and AAPC, as organizations, have different bylaws and membership.
The ACA is a service-oriented organization for licensed professional counselors of all backgrounds and worldviews. For example, a member might have a worldview based on atheism, Buddhism, Islam, or Christianity. The ACA cannot assume any similar beliefs or ethical backgrounds among its members.
AACC membership has a broad aspect in the definition of counselor and a narrow aspect in the sense that members are Christians. The AACC Code of Ethics includes sections applicable to licensed professional counselors, pastoral counselors, and lay helpers.
The AAPC has the narrowest membership. Full membership in AAPC requires the member to have an M. Div and be ordained by a denominational organization. The denominational organization does not have to be a Christian denomination. The AAPC Code in the Foreword section specifically states that counselors are also subject to the code of ethics of their domains.
Comparison of ethical descriptors
By comparing two Christian codes from the American Association of Pastoral Counselors and the Christian Psychological Studies Association with two secular codes from the American Counseling Association and the American Psychological Association, Beck uses all 23 key ethical descriptors. The descriptors come from the Williams Index of Ethical Code Terminology which was identified by Austin, Moline, and Williams (1990) as being contained in all six codes they examined (Beck, 1997). Table 1 includes the 23 descriptors, additional terms identified, and cross-references to the respective code sections for each descriptor or term.
The ACA Code contains the 23 ethical descriptions discussed by Beck and most of the additional terms. The only section the ACA Code does not include are the special care sections included in the AACA Code related to substance abuse, abortion, divorce, sexual relations with clients, and homosexual conduct.
The AACC Code covers all the descriptors except denial of treatment, fraud, techniques and, like the AAPC Code, it does not include the additional descriptors related to the use of technology, consultation and forensic evaluation.
The AAPC Code includes the minimum descriptors of all three codes. It does not include descriptors related to measurement tests, protection, peer reports, multicultural clients, groups, specific care situations, technology, consultation, or forensic evaluations.
Although codes may include sections related to each descriptor, it does not follow that each Code provides for similar treatment of descriptors. Two examples of descriptors that are handled differently are suicide and dual relationships.
Section A.9 of the ACA Code deals with suicide. This section leaves the decision whether or not to support assisted suicide in the hands of the counselor and states that the counselor should strive to “allow clients to exercise the greatest degree of self-determination possible.” The AACC Code discusses suicide in section E1-127. The AACC Code states that counselors must refuse to “tolerate or advocate active forms of euthanasia and assisted suicide.” The AAPC Code does not address this issue. A counselor who is a member of the ACA and AACC would be subject to conflicting codes of ethics in the area related to the counselor’s actions regarding assisted suicide.
The differences related to dual relationships are not as clear cut as in suicide, but the language of the three codes seems to present a spectrum of advice about dual relationships.
The ACA Code, in 2005, was amended to lessen the restriction on dual relationships. Section A.5.d of the ACA Code now allows for a dual relationship if the relationship is beneficial to the counseling relationship. The wording of the ACA seems to indicate an acceptance of dual relationships. Sections ES 1-140 through 1-146 of the AACC Code state that some dual relationships are unethical. The AACC Code allows for an exception, but states that it is imperative that the counselor document the dual relationship and clearly document the logic of the relationship in the client’s notes. The language used in the AACC Code appears to be less supportive of dual relationships than the ACA Code. The AAPC Code appears to be the most restrictive by stating in Principle III E. “We avoid dual customer relationships…which could impair our professional judgment.” The AAPC Code does not recognize a dual positive relationship or provide guidance on how to determine or manage a dual positive relationship.
Summary
Hathaway (2001) raises the question of what basis is provided to support the code of ethics? She goes on to observe that Christian and secular professional codes are similar in many significant ways. He reasons that this is due to the fact that all mental health professionals are trained in the same or similar training programs, work in the same environment, and work toward the same goals. Freeman, Engels and Altekruse (2004) raise a similar question when they state that “those who practice… behavioral sciences regularly make moral/ethical judgments about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain actions, but what is the basis for such actions?” ?”. concept? How are they justified? The only missing element in all three models is the basis for ethical decision making. This leaves the practitioner without a supporting framework in situations that conform exactly to the standard or where sections of various codes conflict, as noted above. The Tarasoff case referred to by Freeman et al. (2004) is a good example of this problem. All three codes require the counselor to maintain the confidentiality of information relating to the counselee and counseling sessions. But how does the counselor know when a competing code element, such as do no harm, would outweigh another section without a solid understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the code and/or a defined decision-making model?
Since the decision-making model is left to the code authors, these codes will be subject to continual redrafting to meet the changing examples of ethical issues that arise.
References
American Association of Christian Counselors. (2004). AACC Code of Ethics. Alexandria, Virginia
American Association of Pastoral Counselors. (1993). Ethical code. Fairfax, Virginia
American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, Virginia
Austin, KM, Moline, ME, and Williams, GT (1990). Facing malpractice: legal and ethical dilemmas in psychotherapy. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Beck, J. (1997). Christian codes, are they better? Ethics of Christian Counseling (pp. 313-325). Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
Freeman, S., Engels, D., & Altekruse, M. (April 2004). Foundation of ethical standards and codes: the role of moral philosophy and theory in ethics. Council and Values, 48;163-174.
Hathaway, W. (2001). Common Sense Professional Ethics: A Christian Assessment. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29224-233.
Highlights of the ACA Code of Ethics. (2005, October). counseling today, 1.16-17.63.