I am curious about ethical considerations when treating individuals who are HIV positive. What are my responsibilities as a clinician if I know that my client (HIV positive) is engaging in risky/unsafe sexual practices with someone? In this case, the other person’s life is endangered.

This issue always stumps me, thank you for your thoughts!

Jeff Barnett Responds:

Hi Stephanie. Great question. This is one that often is very confusing and challenging for psychotherapists. One of the major concerns involves the different but related roles of ethics, law, and clinical practice. I believe some of what is behind your question concerns the issue of “duty to warn and protect” that comes from the landmark Tarasoff decisions in 1974 and 1976 (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California.

In 1974 in the initial ruling the court opined that “where a psychotherapist had reason, arising out of a professional relationship with a patient, to believe, or reasonably should have believed, that the patient was intending to harm a specific victim, that a duty existed to warn that victim” (Mills, 1984).

In 1976 the court revised and updated its opinion, adding to the obligation to warn the intended victim with the need to take actions to protect the intended victim such as by contacting the police, and possibly by even using treatment to prevent the harm from occurring.

The Tarasoff rulings set legal precedent. But, over the years as states have passed laws to address these issues, the precedent has been codified into law. Yet, various states’ laws are different in their requirements. Some states have duty to warn statutes, some have duty to protect statutes, some have duty to warn and protect statutes, and some include treatment in their statutes. For example, in Maryland , the law is the duty to warn, protect, or treat. That is, if treatment can prevent harm to another person from occurring , it should be used first. Confidentiality should only be breached in these situations when treatment is ineffective or is not possible.

But, it is important to note that the Tarasoff rulings and these various state laws are speaking of a specific threat made in treatment to do harm (typically interpreted as lethal harm) to an identifiable victim or group of victims. This brings up several important points. First, it must be a threat to do harm. This implies that the harm did not already occur. The goal of these laws is to prevent future harm. Second, it must be an identified victim, otherwise who would we warn and who would the police potentially take action against? Third, the harm that is threatened should be lethal. If a client said in session that later that day they are going to punch their spouse, this would not meet the standards needed for breaching confidentiality.

But, if one’s state law allows for this the psychotherapist should always consider treatment as the first option. These laws do not require that the psychotherapist make a call to the intended victim and to the police the moment a client discloses such a threat. We are to conduct a thorough risk assessment, address these issues in the treatment plan, and work to address underlying issues, in an effort to prevent the harm from occurring, and thus, to prevent the need to breech confidentiality.

With regard to the issue of a client with HIV or AIDS disclosing engaging in unprotected sex with other individuals this is of course a very serious concern that will hopefully be addressed in treatment. With regard to breaching confidentiality there are several issues of relevance and great importance. First, it is essential that we always include potential limits to confidentiality in our informed consent agreements with our clients.  Then, the following factors are relevant: intent to do harm, likelihood of actual harm occurring, the inability to know the identity of future sexual partners, and the likely presence of consent to engage in these behaviors (Chenneville, 2000). When it comes to unprotected sexual behavior one might reasonably argue that your client’s partners are engaging in this behavior consensually. To date there has been so much education about sexually transmitted diseases, practicing safe sex, and the like, that this situation can be seen as substantively different than the typical Tarasoff-like situation. Of course, if your client stated in session that he was going to rape a specific individual in the future and to do so without a condom, that might more closely approximate the need for the Tarasoff-like actions described above. But, when considering lethal actions, unprotected sex by an HIV-Positive or AIDS-infected individual is does not possess the lethality of shooting, stabbing, etc. another person. The rate of transmission of HIV from unprotected sex is not even close to 100% and for those who are infected there now exist effective treatments.

Thus, it is important to keep in mind the requirements of your state’s laws. This includes duty to warn, protect, and treat laws as well as those relevant to reporting HIV. Some states do not all the reporting of HIV or AIDS status by licensed psychotherapists (e.g. Wisconsin) while other states require the reporting of it (e.g. Washington). So, knowledge of the relevant laws in one’s jurisdiction is essential. It is also important to keep in mind that breaching confidentiality due to harm to others has strict limitations. The harm must be threats of harm in the future, not in the past or ongoing. Additionally, the harm typically must have potentially imminent lethality (again, check your state laws for their specific wording). Finally, if these issues can effectively be addressed in treatment, that is preventing the risk of future harm through treatment, that should carefully be considered unless your state’s law contraindicates this. When addressing these issues are addressed in treatment it is important to thoroughly document all discussions, recommendations, interventions and actions taken, your client’s responses, and all consultations. Further, it’s not just important to document what you did, but also all that you considered and the rationale behind your decisions.

I hope this is helpful to you. I do not represent myself as an attorney or an expert on every jurisdiction’s laws, and I do not know all the details of your case. But, I do hope this provides some issues for consideration and discussion. Please feel free to share your comments and any additional thoughts. I also welcome other members sharing their thoughts and perspectives on this important and challenging issue.

References

Chenneville, T. (2000). HIV, confidentiality, and duty to protect: A decision-making model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31(6), 661-670.

Mills, M. (1984). The so-called duty to warn: The psychotherapeutic duty to protect third parties from patients’ violent acts. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 2(3), 237-257.

As graduate students we receive training not only in academia but in a myriad of different clinical settings, which often lead to a wide range of experiences in terms of supervision. Because of the emphasis that is placed on clinical/practical training for clinical psychology programs in particular a graduate student’s competencies are strongly related to the quality and type of supervision that he or she receives during practica experiences.  Given this, how important do you think it is for supervisors of graduate students to receive training in the area of supervision?  Should there be specific competency requirements for psychologists or other mental health clinicians who plan to train graduate students?

Jeff Barnett Responds:

This is a really important question. Clinical supervision is an essential aspect of every psychologist’s professional training. We each participate in supervision during different stages or phases of our professional growth and development. Without it, we couldn’t develop the competence needed as professionals. Yet, the quality of the supervision we receive is of great importance. Inadequate, unethical, or insufficient supervision has serious ramifications for our developing competence as well as for the clients to whom we provide professional services.

Competence is generally thought of as being comprised of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values, and the ability to implement them effectively. In general, we obtain much of the knowledge we need from academic course work, reading, attending seminars, and the like. We also should be able to obtain additional knowledge from our clinical supervisors. Our skills are developed primarily in clinical supervision. Our supervisors also serve as professional role models; we learn and develop many of our professional attitudes and values from the examples set by our supervisors.

It is essential that supervisors possess two major types of competence; competence in the clinical areas they are supervising and competence in being a supervisor. It is definitely important that supervisors have training in being a supervisor. Like any other clinical role, it has it’s own literature, research, and requisite skills. Merely having been supervised in the past is not a sufficient credential for being a supervisor. Also, just because a job may require a psychologist to supervise a certain number of trainees, that doesn’t mean one is competent to provide the supervision. One must first obtain the necessary training to develop needed competence so that one may provide supervision skillfully and ethically. There are different models of supervision, various methods of supervision, and a number of clinical and ethical issues supervisors should be aware of.

Some jurisdictions require clinical supervisors to have  a certain number of hours of continuing education in clinical supervision for their license to be renewed every two years if they are to provide clinical supervision. That’s a good start, but a minimal requirement. Training programs should require that potential supervisors submit documentation of their training, experience, and competence in providing supervision before being allowed to supervise students. This may involve submitting continuing education certificates, transcripts, a statement of professional experience, and/or letters of recommendation. But, often training programs have a difficult time getting supervisors for their students since the supervisors are often volunteers. As a result, programs may just be glad to get supervisors for students and may not be as careful or thorough in screening potential supervisors. Just as supervisees receive written and verbal feedback throughout the course of supervision, perhaps supervisors should receive written feedback and evaluations from supervisees that are shared with training programs.

There are also many ethics issues that supervisors and supervisees should be aware of. Additionally, there’s a body of research that highlights the qualities of effective and ineffective supervisors (and supervisees!) that both supervisors and supervisees should be aware of. I also believe that there should be an informed consent agreement or supervision contract completed at the outset of the supervision relationship that clarifies all roles, responsibilities, obligations, and the like. These issues and other relevant ones are addressed in the PowerPoint slides below that are from a presentation on the topic I gave recently.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any comments in response to what I have written here or if you have other questions please don’t hesitate to ask. I also welcome others’ comments and questions as well. I wish you much success in your training. A final thought is to keep in mind that as a supervisee, you are an active consumer of a service. You must be provided with the needed oversight, training, supervision, mentoring, and role modeling that are needed for you to flourish and develop as a professional psychologist.

Best wishes – Jeff

Ethical and Legal Issues in Supervision

Click Here To View Previous Questions And Responses

I have a client (18yr female) who I have seen twice a week for 8 months who is currently in a relationship plagued with intimate partner violence. This has been dubbed “mutual combat” by several of my co-workers, but in exploration with her, it appears as though the severity of his violence, his physical strength, and his emotional control create a dynamic where she sometimes reacts with violence (i.e., pushing him so she can escape, scratching his arms when they are around her neck). She has asked to begin couples therapy with her partner, and he has agreed. I am familiar with some of the literature on couples therapy and intimate partner violence and have had some training in this area, but no one else at my location (a community mental health center) is trained in couples therapy and/or intimate partner violence. My agency is now discussing the possibility of me seeing them as a couple while continuing to see her. Are there guidelines or best practice recommendations about
whether it would be appropriate for me to see them as a couple?

Response by Jeffrey Barnett

Thanks for this great question. I’m really glad you are asking it. Clearly you are sensitive to the issue of competence with regard to the knowledge and skills needed to provide couples therapy. As your question implies, being competent in individual psychotherapy doesn’t necessarily translate over to clinical work with couples. Once must have the necessary education and training from course work, readings, CE activities, and supervised clinical experience before expanding our practice into a new area. I agree with you that you need to be aware of relevant practice standards and guidelines as well.

The situation you describe is also challenging because of the highly volatile nature of the relationship and the risks present for all involved (including yourself!). It will be important to be sure you have in place safeguards to protect yourself should anyone become aggressive or violent during a session. Having a colleague present or nearby during sessions, having a ‘panic button’ at your desk to quickly summon security if needed, positioning yourself near the door and not having clients seated between you and the door each may be important. Additionally, having a treatment contract/informed consent agreement that clearly specifies rules of conduct for the psychotherapy relationship is important as well. It should specify acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, appropriate alternatives to use if one is angry, and responses or consequences that will occur should certain specified behaviors happen.
With regard to the competence issue and relevant standards I suggest you consult with colleagues who are experts in couples therapy and in clinical work with intimate/partner violence. APA’s Division of Family Psychology and the Family Psychology section of the American Board of Professional Psychology may be good resources. While you may not have a competent supervisor on site, consultation and supervision may be done across distances by use of televideo communications such as Skype or by telephone and by sending the supervisor tapes of sessions with appropriate consent of the clients.

You are wise to be concerned about practicing in a new area without first knowing relevant practice standards, obtaining needed education and training, and receiving ongoing consultation or supervision. Then, should you proceed with this case, be sure your expert colleagues provide suggestions on how to structure the treatment sessions and relationships to ensure the safety of all involved. I hope this is of help. Should you have additional questions or comments please let me know. I also hope others will share their thoughts on this important area of practice as well. Perhaps some colleagues who work with these types of couples can share their perspectives.

Thanks and best wishes – Jeff

Click Here To View Previous Questions And Responses

Currently, there is a push for people to be on medication, and clients often come in stating that they want medication. This is especially true in multidisciplinary environments where psychiatrists and APRNs work alongside psychotherapists. However, some people do not have this mindset. For therapists who believe that medication only needs to be used as a last resort or in obvious serious situations, is it ethical to not refer everyone to a med provider, and instead of offering medication right off the bat, to wait and try and achieve success in therapy first, in the hopes that medication will not be needed?

Response By Jeffrey Barnett

This is a great question and one that all psychologists and psychotherapists should carefully consider.  It is true that some mental health patients must have medication included as a part of their treatment. These may include those suffering from Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, and other serious mental illnesses. But, even for these patients, we know that medication alone does not provide the best treatment outcomes. Even for these patients, psychotherapy and psychoeducation are important components of their treatment. Many of these patients struggle with medication compliance for a variety of reasons to include side effects of their medication. We also know that for many mental health patients, even those for whom medication may be of help, that many of them will also benefit from psychotherapy alone or a combination of psychotherapy and medication. Fairly recent data demonstrate that psychotherapy can result in many of the same changes in the brain that medication causes, and without the significant side effect potential or the potential for drug-drug interactions.

It is unfortunate that we live in a time where pharmaceutical companies directly market their products directly to consumers and the health insurance and managed care industries often take a myopic view due to fiscally motivated treatment decisions. Some patients may not be allowed to see a psychotherapist under their insurance plan until they have tried and failed with two or three medications. That’s really tragic, especially with all we know about the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

I believe your question brings up several important ethics issues. The first is informed consent. It is important to share all reasonably available information with your clients to assist them in their decision making. While we shouldn’t overwhelm them with information, it is important to ensure that they understand the reasonably available options and alternatives for their treatment along with their relative risks and benefits. This will then assist them to make more thoughtful and informed treatment decisions. The second important issue is that of competence. If we aren’t sufficiently knowledgeable about psychopharmacology and psychotherapy we can’t provide the relevant information and can’t effectively assist patients to make the most informed decisions possible.  We should also explore with patients their motivations for wanting medication. They may be seeking a quick and easy ‘fix’ for their difficulties. Again, providing them with relevant information will assist them to have realistic expectations of treatment whether psychotherapy alone, medication alone, or a combination of the two. Finally, when our psychotherapy patients are being treated with medication it is important that we address confidentiality and consultation issues with regard to coordinating treatment with their prescribing physician (or other professional). We should ensure that we have appropriate consent from our patients before sharing information with others, but should stress the importance of coordinating care with our patients. We can monitor for side effects, positive effects, and the like. The prescribing professional may only meet with the patient for 15 minutes every 6 months whereas we may meet with the patient for 50 to 60 minutes each week.  For those patients taking medication in addition to our psychotherapy we can play a valuable role in monitoring their functioning and progress.

We can also work to educate prescribing professionals about the short and long term benefits of psychotherapy for a wide range of presenting problems. In the multidisciplinary environment it can be very important to provide inservice training on psychotherapy. You could also provide consultations on patients at intake and explain treatment options then.

There is not obligation to refer all patients to a prescribing professional right away, but this goes back to the points raised about informed consent. One thing you can do is in your practice literature (as well as on your website if you have one) you can describe the services you offer along with your treatment approach and practice philosophy. That may be a good way to let patients and potential patients know how you approach treatment for a range of presenting problems. Then, if they still want to meet with you could go through the informed process as described earlier. But, you should endeavor to provide patients with accurate information, not just personal opinion. Also, it is important to ensure that all patients are medically cleared for treatment and if medical conditions exist that may impact their treatment referral for appropriate medical care is essential (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, etc.).

What you ask about is a true ethics dilemma; that is, there is no clearly correct or incorrect course of action. The best course of action depends on a number of issues and factors as described above. What makes your practices ethical or unethical is the actions you take, the actions you choose not to take, and the rationale for doing so (along with following the dictates of the ethics code and relevant state laws).

I hope this is of help. If you have additional questions or comments please post them here. Thanks for seeking this consultation. I hope others can benefit from reading it and will respond as well.

Best wishes – Jeff

Click Here To View Previous Questions And Responses

By Dr Keely Kolmes and Dr. Dan Taube.

Our society and, indeed, the world, is becoming increasingly networked via the Internet, and mental health practitioners are beginning to rely more heavily on the World Wide Web. As this happens, reports of encounters with clients and treatment complexities have begun to emerge (Grohol, 2008; Hsiung, 2009). The increased visibility of and access to friend networks and public Internet postings has created new possibilities for intentional and accidental virtual contacts between therapists and clients. The growth of social networking and web-based information also raises the possibility of clients searching for and finding professional and personal information about psychologists, and for psychologists to search for and find similar information about clients.

The former concern has caused unease among mental health providers. Zur and Donner (2009), for example, explored the availability of large caches of online information about therapists and framed the access to such information as an issue of therapist transparency and disclosure. They outlined the difference between deliberate versus non-deliberate, verbal versus nonverbal, and avoidable versus unavoidable therapist disclosures. Zur and Donner noted that the motivations of clients who seek information on therapists can range from harmless curiosity to criminal stalking. They recommended that therapists using the Internet should remain aware that all of their online postings, blogs, chats, and other interactions may be viewed by clients and will be forever archived online. They further encouraged therapists to search online for information about themselves regularly to be sure what clients are discovering about them, and they made recommendations about how we should attempt to monitor and address concerns about our own privacy.

Increasingly, ethics commentators have turned their focus to the problems and promises of psychologists searching for information about applicants, clients, and others on the Internet. Behnke (2007) noted that some clinical training directors and graduate program faculty have started to use the Internet to search for information about trainees and applicants. He raised the question of how this third party information should be handled and he noted the risks related to psychologists shifting from a clinical to an investigatory role. Barnett (2009) focused on the potential for therapists to secretly access client information online. He defined such behavior as a boundary issue and suggested that these pursuits may violate an implied contract and may affect the public’s trust in psychologists, unless this behavior is clearly addressed in the process of informed consent.

Hughs (2009), on the other hand, asserted that it is not necessarily unethical to search for patient information online. Her argument was that if information was sought to promote patient care, rather than to satisfy a therapist’s curiosity, it could further a legitimate clinical interest. For example, if a client refused or was unable to provide historical information, an online search might be a reasonable way to obtain supplemental data.

Thus, there are ethical and practical issues emerging in regard to extra-therapeutic contacts on the Web. Theoretically, there are ethical hazards related to multiple relationships (APA, 2002), but such contacts may have the potential to benefit clients and treatment. Yet there is little in the way of empirical data about these risks and benefits. One of the only empirical investigations that has been conducted thus far was a study by Lehavot, Barnett and Powers (2010), that surveyed graduate psychology students to assess, among other things, the degree to which they sought online information about clients. The authors reported that some 27% of their participants engaged in this activity. They acknowledged that searching for client information has the potential both to have negative and positive influences on the clinical relationship.

The Current Research

In our current, ongoing survey, we aim to extend Lehavot et al.’s (2010) study to include a wide range of professionals (psychologists, marriage and family therapists, clinical social workers and psychiatrists) at a variety of training levels (e.g., clinicians in training, recent graduates, and experienced clinicians). We also hope to explore ethical issues faced by practicing psychotherapists who have had intentional and accidental extra-therapeutic encounters with their clients on the Internet.

Our study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Alliant International University. If you are interested in participating, you may access the survey and begin the Consent Process.

Our findings will be posted at the end of August, 2010 in several places: Dr. Kolmes website, Dr. Taube’s website,  and an interim report was presented at the California Psychological Association’s 2010 Convention in a session by Dr. Kolmes called Friending, Fanning, and Following: Findings on Client-Therapist Internet Interactions and their Influence on Treatment.

References

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.

Barnett, J., (2009) Social Networking Sites, Clients, and Ethics: Dilemmas and Recommendations. [Lecture]. From International Conference on Use of the Internet in Mental Health, Montreal 2009. Retrieved from http://bcooltv.mcgill.ca/Viewer2/?RecordingID=27892

Behnke, S. (2007, January).  Posting on the Internet: An Opportunity for self (and other) reflection. APA Monitor on Psychology, 60-61.

Behnke, S. (2007, July/August). Ethics in the age of the Internet. APA Monitor on Psychology, July74-75.

Grohol, J. M. (2008, May 14). Social network may blur professional boundaries. Message posted to http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/05/15
/social-networks-may-blur-professional-boundaries/

Hsiung, R. (2009, May).  How to friend: Social networking Web sites for beginners [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting, http://mythreeshrinks.com/apa09/slides-hsiung.pdf

Hughs, L. (2009, May). Ethics Corner: Is it ethical to Google patients? Psychiatric News, 44, 9 & 11.

Lehavot, K., Barnett, J., & Powers, D. (in press). Psychotherapy, professional relationships, and ethical considerations in the MySpace generation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.

Zur, O., & Donner, M. B. (2009; January/February). The Google Factor: Therapists’ Transparency in the Era of Google and MySpace. The California Psychologist, 23-24.

Linda Campbell

The APA Council In Action!  By Linda Campbell and Norine Johnson.

We are quite used to stalemates, filibusters, and partisanship these days, aren’t we? I wish you could all have attended this Council meeting to see actual decision-making, compromise, and respectful disagreement. There were items on this Council agenda that truly spoke to who we are, what our values are, and what is important to us. You would have been very proud to see how differing members conducted themselves and how the decisions were made.  We are going to plunge into the top items of importance to Div. 29 here and hope that if you want more detail or want to discuss any of these subjects that you will contact us at lcampbel@uga.edu or NorineJ@aol.com.

Recognition of Psychotherapy Effectiveness

Before your blood pressure goes up, yes, all of us who are members of Div. 29 know and have known for many years that psychotherapy is effective. What we recently realized, however, is that never has there been a resolution, declaration, or any official statement adopted by APA to acknowledge this fact. Melba Vasquez, Nadine Kaslow, and Linda Campbell authored a new business item to be presented in August for a vote of Council acknowledging this important fact. Linda Campbell or Nadine Kaslow can send you a copy of the statement if you would like to read it. Several of our Div. 29 members contributed to the supporting seminal references and citations. It’s a great read!

Amendment to The APA Ethics Code

For the first time ever, the APA Ethics Code has been amending between official revisions. You are aware of the concerns that many APA members have had regarding the potential use of the Standards 1.02 and 1.03 and the ambiguity of the meaning of the standards in serving as guidance for psychologists. A primary concern about the potential interpretation of the standards as they stood was the possibility that following the law could be used to coerce psychologists into inhuman treatment of others. The APA Ethics Committee drafted the proposed change that is meant to better define this uncertainty. The draft change went through without a hitch. The revised standards are written as follows. The underlining represents added text and the strike through represents deleted text:

Standard 1.02 Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority

If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologist clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defined violating human rights.

Standard 1.03 Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands

If the demands of an organization with which psychologist are affiliated or for whom they are working are in conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and to the extent feasible, resolve the conflict in a way that permits adherences to the Ethics Code. Take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethics Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.

These amendments represent hard work by many people and very difficult and challenging conversations. Those whose efforts were greatly invested in this matter rose to the occasion most admirably and respectfully.

The APA Model Licensure Act Has Been Approved!

The primary purpose of the Model Licensing Act is to provide a model to state, provincial, and territorial legislatures of language that would be consistent with APA’s policies in the event that legislatures enact a change in their law or regulations that affect the practice of psychology. Several areas were reviewed and updated; however, the major discussion centered around the use of the term “psychologist” in school settings and licensure requirements for I/O psychologists. The challenge for consensus came from the policy of APA enacted several years ago and the stance of professional psychology in that psychology is a doctoral level profession. Although, some state and provincial licensing boards have variations in masters level practices, the policy of APA is that psychology remains a doctoral level profession.

For many years, prior to licensure in some states, State Departments of Education have authorized and certified individuals who have masters and educational specialist degrees to practice in the schools and be termed “school psychologists.” Individuals who work in public school settings in these roles are typically not doctoral level. The question at hand was whether or not to extend the exemption that school psychologists have had for some years. In other words, could school psychologists be an exception to the requirement for doctoral level status of those calling themselves psychologists?

In hearing out all sides and all opinions on this very difficult matter, the Council voted to adopt the following: “The act recognizes the authority of appropriate state education bodies to issue titles to those who provide psychological services in schools as long as those titles incorporate the word “school.” The act continues to restrict the practice of such individuals and their use of their title to employment within school settings.” In other words, the adopted wording recognizes Departments of Education to be able to authorize professional positions under their aegis. The second amendment to the Model Act exempted I/O psychologists from the requirement of licensure (except as required in their jurisdictions) unless they provide mental health services to individuals.

Council Moves Out Of The Manchester

Contracts for APA Convention sites are made several years ahead of the event. After contracting with the Manchester Hyatt, it was discovered that the owner, Doug Manchester is a major contributor to the California Proposition 8, an effort to overturn the California Supreme Court ruling providing marriage equity for same-sex couples. This development resulted in much deliberation between values and money. On the one hand, many members felt that they could not in good conscience attend the Council meeting if held in the Manchester. The other meetings and where members’ hotel reservations are would, of course, be individual or divisional decisions. The Council meeting location represents a decision by APA that is logistical, financial, symbolic, and value-driven. The Treasurer, Paul Craig determined that a move would cost no more than $100,000. President Goodheart established a context for Council members’ remarks that was respectful, inclusive, and encouraging of all to speak. After the discourse, Council voted overwhelmingly to move the August Council meeting to another location. Dr. Goodheart summarized the discussion by saying, “Members of our Council will now not be faced with having to choose between their responsibilities as members of Council and their wish to express their opposition to Mr. Manchester’s action by not entering his hotel.”

Consensus and Endorsement of the APA Core Values

Our APA CEO Norm Anderson has initiated the development of our first ever Strategic Plan. Along with the plan was needed a mission statement, vision statement, and set of core values. As we have reported from earlier Council meetings, all had been decided except the core values. The task force charged with developing the core values for acceptance by Council was chaired most ably by Rodney Lowman and one of our representatives, Linda Campbell, was a member of this group. Over a period of months, the task force worked on finalizing the values with the sticking points being around (1) how to word the diversity value and (2) how to word the science value. Even on the floor of Council during the discussion, editing and compromise were still going on. Almost miraculously, we now have a set of core values overwhelmingly supported by Council and they are:

The American Psychological Association commits to its vision through a mission based upon the following values:

Continual Pursuit of Excellence

Knowledge and its Application Based Upon Methods of Science

Outstanding Service to its Members and to Society

Social Justices, Diversity and Inclusion

Ethical Action in All that We Do

Approval of APA 2010 Budget

Good news, sort of. As you know, APA like the rest of us was hard hit by the economic downturn of 2008 and 2009. Many cuts were made in meetings, personnel, and services, and benefits in order to right the ship. The cash flow from the buildings, however, yielded $3.5 million which contributed greatly. As a result, APA can report a forecast of $114,400. with expenditures of $113,500 resulting in a forecasted operating margin of $900.000.

Transparency In Advertising

APA has become aware that students and potential students who are reading APA materials see paid advertisements which sometimes appear to be endorsed by APA and therefore can be misleading for students who are looking for graduate programs and other educational services. As a result, the Council voted soundly to develop criteria and transparency for educational advertising:

1. Advertising of educational programs in APA publications and  web sites must be programs that are fully accredited by regional or other institutional accrediting associations recognized by the Department of Education.
2. Programs representing areas of professional psychology that are eligible for APA Accreditation (e.g., clinical, counseling, school, I/O, combined) must be accredited by APA to quality as advertisers.

To our loyal and faithful members, if you made it this far in the report, you not only get the t-shirt but a sweatshirt to boot!. It is our pleasure to serve as your Council representatives and we would very  much like to talk with you individually about your thoughts regarding Council and our Division 29.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Campbell, Ph.D.

lcampbel@uga.edu
phone: 678-234-1444

Norine Johnson, Ph.D.

NorineJ@aol.com
phone: 617-471-2268

I have a female client I have seen for several years (abusive marriage then divorce and a very recent re-marriage). She has moved with her new husband about two hours away and does all her work by computer, so she doesn’t come to Atlanta anymore. She asked if I could do “phone therapy” with her. I am guessing probably every other week (at the most) and once a month (at the least). She doesn’t use insurance. I would prefer that she just come down to Atlanta once a month, but she has two kids and a full time job, so it’s not so easy to do. I am guessing this “phone therapy” wouldn’t be for much longer, maybe just two to three times, but I’m not sure. Thanks for your input on this matter.

Response by Dr. Barnett.

Hi Betty. Good questions. There are a few relevant issues. If this is just for a few sessions to tide her over until she can find a new psychologist in her local area or to help her with the transition to her new situation, and thus is time limited, it is much more appropriate. If this is to be the primary form of treatment over an extended period of time it raises several concerns. Can telephone contacts replace in-person
psychotherapy? A lot of that depends on the client’s treatment issues and needs. For some clients this may actually appropriately meet their clinical needs. For others it may prove insufficient. Doing a careful assessment is important and documenting all options considered and relevant factors, pros and cons, the rationale of your decision, and the actual decision. Then, you will want to be sure to fully address these issues in the informed consent process (an ongoing process where you address any significant changes to the treatment contract). It is also important to familiarize yourself with resources in the clients local area so you can access them or
refer her to them should she experience an emergency. Since she’s two hours away and not 12 hours away for example, this may be less pressing an issue, but still important to address proactively. Also, since the client is still in the same state you don’t need to consider licensure issues; you’re not providing services across state lines. That could be problematic. But, even with that, two phone calls when a client is on vacation or on a business trip is very different than providing ongoing treatment via telephone (telehealth/e-therapy) across state lines.

I suggest discussing with the client her needs and her reasons for wanting this type of continued contact with you. If a call once or twice per month for a couple of months is all that is needed it should be less an issue than if this is ongoing treatment. But, any agreement struck with your client should also include what will happen if her treatment needs change. Initial agreements that sound reasonable at times need to change due to changing circumstances for the client. If she needs more intensive treatment will you provide her weekly telephone sessions for an extended period of time or will the agreement stipulate that she will then accept one of the referrals for in-person treatment in her local area that you provide to her?

These are some issues to consider. As always with ethical dilemmas there is no one right answer, but rather, several issues, factors, and options to consider. Also, closely monitoring the situation and having needed agreements in place are all important. I hope this is of help. If you have additional questions or reactions to this response please let me know.

Thanks and best wishes – Jeff

Click Here to Post A Question.

Click Here to View Previous Questions and Responses