Revision of Ethics Code Calls for Stronger Former Client Sex Rule

VOLUME 30 , NUMBER 7 July/August 1999

Revision of ethics code calls for stronger former client sex rule

A draft of new code expected to be ready for members' comments by 2000.

By Sara Martin
Monitor staff

APA's ethics code should more strongly prohibit sexual intima-cy between former clients and practitioners, according to APA's Ethics Code Task Force, the group charged with reviewing the code and suggesting changes.

APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct was last revised in 1992. After an initial review, the task force has concluded that many of the standards should remain unmodified. However, task force members say several standards need to be changed to ensure the code's continued relevancy.

Among them is Standard 4.07, which prohibits sexual intimacy for two years once the therapeutic relationship ends. The task force is proposing a "perpetuity rule" that would prohibit relationships no matter how much time has elapsed since the last client visit. The draft of the proposed standard simply states, "Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with their former therapy patients or clients."

Ethics Code Task Force Chair Celia B. Fisher, PhD, professor of psychology and director of the Center for Ethics Education at Fordham University, says that although the current rule is a strong standard, the task force wanted to go farther.

"The task force decided that an absolute ban on post-termination sexual relationships more clearly addresses the inherent power imbalance, which is not erased with termination," she says. "The proposed standard also addresses the harm that may arise from the likely waiver of privilege and confidentiality required for a post-termination complaint, as well as other aspects of the relationship that persist well beyond two years post-termination, such as legal requirements regarding maintenance of records."

In addition, Fisher says, the task force was concerned that a time-limited ban can contribute to both the therapist and client or patient believing that feelings of attraction may "some day be consummated and may even be condoned by professional ethics, thus interfering with an ongoing therapeutic relationship or resumption of therapy following termination."

Furthermore, she points out, in light of the fact that other mental health professions, such as the American Psychiatric Association, have a total prohibition, the task force decided that psychology's public image would be strengthened by a standard that "makes clear that our profession places the highest value on protecting consumers' interests and well-being," she says.

Other proposed changes

Member input, as well as a review of other professional associations' ethic codes and suggestions carried over from the last revision, have given the task force guidance on other proposed changes to the code. They include:

Expanding the current prohibition against sexual relations with students and supervisees in training (Standard 1.19a) to include those students or supervisees "who are in their department or over whom the psychologist has or is likely to have evaluative, direct or indirect authority, because such relationships are so likely to impair judgment or to be exploitative."

Introducing standards that, for the first time, require informed consent for psychological assessments, except when testing without consent is mandated by law, when testing is part of regular school activities or when informed consent is clearly implied. The 1992 code added an explicit requirement for informed consent to therapy.

Proposing a standard that calls for psychologists who conduct group therapy to take steps to avoid harm that may emerge when clients or patients are seen in both individual and group therapy. Although seeing clients or patients in both individual and group therapy is not unethical per se, says Fisher, in some instances it can "result in a harmful multiple relationship because it has the potential to impair objectivity, create role confusion and be exploitative." The purpose of this proposed standard would be to encourage psychologists to avoid situations that pose such harm.

Proposing that APA take a new position in the debate over appropriate release of raw test data. The current standard (2.02b) provides, in part, that "Psychologists refrain...from releasing raw test results or raw data to persons...who are not qualified to use such information." The task force will propose adding to the end of that standard, "except as required by statute or court order or to an attorney or court based on a client release." The draft will also include a new subsection that states, "When required by statute or court order to release raw data, psychologists take reasonable steps to explain the findings to clients and other legitimate parties."

Modifying a standard on authorship of publications based on student dissertations. The new draft would state that, "A student is listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article that is substantially based on the student's dissertation or thesis when to do so accurately reflects the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved." The current standard notes that students are "usually" listed as principal authors.

Proposing new standards or provisions related to protecting whistleblowers, using interpreters, ameliorating harm that occurs from research participation and allowing withdrawal of informed consent retroactively upon debriefing in deception research.

None of these changes represents a major overhaul of the existing code, emphasizes Fisher. "We have no evidence that the current ethics code isn't working well," she says, noting that the revision will ensure that the code reflects the new ethical challenges psychologists are facing, as well as the field's increased sensitivity to ethical concerns. "This is not an undoing of the existing code. It's really an evolution of it."

Hearing from members

The 13 members of the task force appointed by APA's Ethics Committee represent practice, teaching, research representatives from APA's Council, Board of Directors, Ethics Committee and the American Psychological Association of Graduate Students. The task force plans to have a draft ready for members' comments by the end of 2000, says Fisher.

By 2002, the group hopes to have a draft ready for action by APA's Council of Represen-tatives. Final approval rests with council.

Throughout the multi-year process, the task force will be reaching out to APA members to ensure that the revision process is as open as possible.

"Those of us who are involved in the current revision have bent over backwards to make it more inclusive," says Gerald P. Koocher, a member of APA's Board of Directors who serves on the task force.

The task force is taking a variety of steps to solicit member input:

The Monitor has published numerous open calls to the membership to provide comments on the existing code's content and format, as well as "critical incidents" or ethical dilemmas they have faced.

The task force has invited APA division presidents, state psychological association presidents and chairs of state ethics committees and licensing boards to submit comments.

A random sample of 3,000 APA members also received letters requesting comments; to ensure adequate representation, minorities, academics and industrial/organizational psychologists were oversampled.

The American Psychological Association of Graduate Students issued a call for comments in its newsletter and at its annual meeting.

The task force held a well-attended open meeting at the 1998 Annual Convention and plans another at the 1999 Annual Convention in Boston.

Task force meetings are open to representatives of all APA constituencies.

As a result, the task force has already received more than 300 critical incidents and 160 comments.

"I'm very pleased with the response so far," says Fisher.Y

To submit a comment or critical incident to the Ethics Code Task Force, contact APA's Office of Ethics at (202) 336-5930 or e-mail: Ethics.

Read our privacy statement and Terms of Use

Cover Page for this Issue

APA Home Page . Search . Site Map