Ethics in Practice Analysis
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliations
Licensing and Cord of Ethics
According to the California Association for Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors, for an individual to own a license, they have to ha a completed graduate degree. For counsellors, they register through the board of behaviour science so to become a professional clinical counsellor intern. After this, they can work for the required supervised hours. A counsellor ought to finish 3,000 managed hours for at least two years and has six years to complete hours of supervision.
If notified by the board of education deficiencies from a unique education process, then the individual is given a year to finish any education deficiencies before the Board of Behavioral Science assigns them an intern number. In the first year of the internship, the Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor Law & Ethics give an exam. The exam is taken, followed by the National Clinical Mental Health Counselor Exam once the individual has completed all required supervised hours (CALPCC – Licensure Requirements, 2020). When a person does not pass the test the first time, they are mandated to do the tests at least once a year.
Ewing v. Goldstein
The case involving Ewing v. Goldstein was filed in September 2004, heard and decided the very same year. In this case, the client threatens to kill a man he claims to be dating his ex-girlfriend, the commit suicide (California Supreme Court, 2004). The client’s father reports the case to a therapist. The therapist did not take action on the information but instead chose to ignore it since it did not come from the client, following the codes of ethics. Later on, the client goes on to fulfil his mission and kills the man. The father to the client sues the therapist for neglect of the information he had been given and not warning against the impending threat.
At the courtroom, the therapist defended himself that he is mandated to act on threats that directly come from the client and not from other parties. The cord of ethics also requires him to warn threats that endanger their life and that of other people. Since the therapist had heard it from the third party, the case was dismissed, however, later it was appealed.
The appeals court then reversed the trial court’s decision, stating that in this case, the communication from the client’s father was patient communication, regarding the duty to warn statute. The American Psychological Association (APA) then united with the California Psychological Association to request a review of the plaintiff decision. The letter stated that the consequences of broadening the meaning of client communication in towards duty to warn would be extraordinary. They emphasized the fact that it would lead to many more people with mental health concerns being less likely to seek treatment.
Marquez v. Estate of Garcia
The case of In Marquez v. Estate of Garcia was filed in March 2010 because of an issue on the confidentiality of patient records and the confession of a psychotherapist who held a patient’s case. Allegedly, the plaintiffs claim the respondent’s employee was under the influence while working a forklift, which leads to his death. Seemingly, this was not the defendant first time at work under control, operating the machinery all while the employer was informed. After the defendant urine sample tested positive for alcohol, the respondent then checked into the Betty Ford Center.
The plaintiffs tried to subpoena the defendant’s medical and psychiatric records, but the centre functions as a drug and alcohol cure program ruled by federal laws and guidelines. Also, they would be incapable of complying with the request for evidence due to the confidentiality clause of such records. Following a comprehensive investigation, the trial court ordered the release of the defendant’s intake information concerning his prior history as well as the statement of the caseworker who had established this information from the defendant.
The APA and the California Psychological Association joined in urging the California Court of Appeals to reverse the lower court decision that would have permitted for the disclosure of opening records from the Betty Ford Center and the admission of the psychologist who moved the case. As a result, the court approved that psychotherapy is dependent on patients’ readiness to share the most intimate details of their lives and reversed the lower court decision.
Analysis
According to the ACA Code of Ethics (2014), in section B.6.g. Disclosure or Transfer: Unless exemptions to confidentiality exist, counsellors get written permission from clients to disclose or transfer records to certain third parties. Stages are taken to guarantee that receivers of counselling accounts are sensitive to their private nature. Though they were subpoena for the records, the client on no occasion provided written permission. Also, section D.1.e. Confidentiality states, “When counsellors are required by law, institutional policy, or extraordinary circumstances to serve in more than one role in judicial or administrative proceedings, they clarify role expectations and the parameters of confidentiality with their colleagues”. The centre plainly stated, they are administrated by federal laws and regulations and would be incapable of complying with the bid for material due to the concealment clause of such records.
Ford
Ford was unwillingly committed to a hospital for 72 hours after being feared precarious. Twelve hours after Ford was admitted, Dr Norton, a psychologist on staff assessed and released him. The psychologist checked with a psychiatrist afore releasing him, but the psychiatrist failed to evaluate him. Norton then wounded his roommate and charged the psychologist and psychiatrist who let him go. The psychologist claimed insusceptibility from responsibility for the fact that law regarding unintentional commitment endowments immunity to psychiatrists concerning discharge judgements. The debate concerning scope of exercise was whether psychologists and psychiatrists could be used interchangeably and whether they were equivalent in rank in respects to involuntary obligation decisions.
Analysis
When the original law was legislated, only psychiatrists could admit and release patients in mental health amenities. When psychologists were allowed the same authorities, the act was not updated. With that in mind, the concern becomes a technicality of terms of the dispute that psychologists must have equal decision-making privileges as psychologists; else psychologists would be regarded as inferior.
According to the ACA Code of Ethics (2014), the current information gets into question the precision of the psychologist’s valuation (E.1.a.), as well as whether the psychologist satisfied his duty to avoid mischief. It might be argued that the psychologist was defending the client’s safety by clearing him from an unconscious commitment state, thus guarding him against physical, emotional, or psychological trauma (A.9.b.). The psychologist did check with a psychiatric co-worker before clearing the patient (C.2.e.), and the psychiatrist maintained the psychologist’s resolution without individually assessing the patient; however, it is not vivid if the psychiatrist was in any supervisory part over the psychologist.
Difference between ACA Cord of Ethics and State Law is the ACA Cord of Ethics
The difference between ACA cord of ethics and State law is the ACA cord of ethics are applied to all citizens and in the federal government. In contrast, the state’s law applies to the citizens of that particular state. The second difference is that ACA cord of ethics is subject to interpretation by the leaders of the association. At the same time, the state law is subject to interpretation by the courts, either district court or the higher courts. An example is a case involving the client who did not warn on the report of the father’s information. The court interpreted the actions based on their legal requirements that it was wrong. However, the decision is reversed by the court of appeal based on the interpretation given by the CPA and APA.
State practice gives acts as an element in the establishment and documentation of procedures of customary international law. At the same time, the ACA cord of ethics does not serve to influence any actions of the international customary law. Therefore, information from the ACA would only apply to the people it is representing and defend them. Any judgements that would be made by the national law would be determinant of how ACA officials would interpret their ethics and how they link with the code. The ACA also differs from one country to another, whereas the practice of the state varies from one state to another. Therefore, the ACA would require the medial team to interpret it while the state practice law would require the legal team to look at it.
References
Ewing v. Goldstein. (2004). Retrieved 18 February 2020, from https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ewing
CALPCC – Licensure Requirements. (2020). Retrieved 18 February 2020, from https://calpcc.org/licensure-requirements
Ford v. Norton, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776, (2001). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/norton