Sport and Exercise Psychology Review - Sport Psychology Goes to ...

‘Yeah, I work with Beckham’: Issues of
confidentiality, privacy and privilege in
sport psychology service delivery
Mark B. Andersen
The interrelated constructs of privacy, confidentiality and privilege, much discussed in legal and medical
arenas, are sometimes given perfunctory treatment in the education and training of sport psychologists.
This article briefly traces the history, debate, and practices of ethical delivery of service from Hippocrates to
current sport psychology professional relationships. Sport psychologists often operate in looser environments
(e.g. on the pool deck, courtside, in the locker room) than those of other psychologists, and it seems that some
concepts of ethical practice, such as confidentiality, are also looser (Andersen, Van Raalte, & Brewer,
2001). This looseness in the field may be, in part, a result of the myriad educational and training pathways
people take to get to the point of acting in psychological caring roles with athletes and coaches. This
article is a strident questioning of some of the ethically loose practices of individuals and sport institutes in
the world of sport psychology services. The author hopes it sparks some lively debate.
OF COURSE, I have never met, much
less worked with, David Beckham. And
even if I had, I could not say that we
had discussed his performance concerns, his
leaving Manchester United, or even his hair.
If it were public knowledge that I was
employed as a sport psychologist for Real
Madrid or the England football team, I still
could not even say that Beckham and I had
(or had not) met and talked. Now someone
might say ‘That’s not exactly true. If you had
Beckham’s permission and informed consent
to let people know you had worked with him
then you could say so.’ By the letter of most
psychological associations’ codes of ethical
conduct, that statement would be correct. I
will argue, later in this article, however, that
the ‘maps’ of ethical codes of conduct are not
necessarily the ‘territories’ of ethical practice,
and that even this ‘with consent’ proviso to
speak publicly about a client is ethically suspect.
First, what may be helpful is a look at
the interrelated ethical constructs of privacy,
confidentiality and privilege.
Privacy
The right to privacy has its roots in Western
philosophical traditions, and is the foundation
for the ethical principle of confidentiality.
Privacy is part of many countries’ constitutions
and helps preserve dignity and
freedom. Privacy is not only about the rights
of persons to hold their thoughts, opinions,
beliefs and personal data to themselves and
feel secure, but it is also about having control
over how and whether (if at all) any of that
information could or should fall into the
hands of others. Privacy serves, philosophically,
as both the deontological (moral necessity,
duty, or obligation) and axiological
(what is valued or valuable) bases of confidentiality
and privilege.
Confidentiality
The godfather, and I use that appellation in
deep reverence, of ethical practice in all
helping professions was (and will ever be)
Hippocrates (b. 460 BC). His formulation of
confidentiality, in the Oath that most all Western
physicians take (in a modern or ancient
form), even after 24 centuries, still stands.
Whatever, in connection with my professional
service, I see or hear, in the life of men, which
ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not
divulge, as reckoning that all such should be
kept secret.
Sport & Exercise Psychology Review Vol 1 No 2 5
© The British Psychological Society 2005 ● ISSN 1745–4980