The OP Review November 2006 - Ohio Psychological Association

A Revised Ethics Code: What’s in it for Teachers?By Elizabeth V. Swenson, PhD, JD, John Carroll UniversityOn August 24, 2002, theCouncil of Representativesof the AmericanPsychological Association (APA) votedto adopt a revision of the EthicalPrinciples of Psychologists and Code ofConduct (Ethics Code) (APA, 1992,2002). It took effect on June 1, 2003 andis available on the Ethics Office Web siteat www.apa.org/ethics in a form thatallows comparisons between the twocodes. The Ethics Code Task Force,chaired by Celia Fisher from FordhamUniversity and comprised of stellar anddiverse psychologists, spent five yearsworking on the revision. The last majorrevision of the Ethics Code was in 1992.To revise the ethics code, a request wassent to the APA membership as well asother professional groups for commentson the code. Of particular interest wereexamples of critical incidents where thecode was felt to either enhance or impairthe ability of psychologists to conducttheir work in an ethical manner, protect(or not protect) the public or was (or wasnot) clearly understood or enforceable.(Several of these comments weresubmitted by my undergraduate studentsas an ethics course project). Each ofthese comments and critical incidentswas thoroughly reviewed by the taskforce. In the course of their work thetask force generated seven drafts of thenew code.The new Ethics Code has beencompletely reformatted. I especially likethat the general principles, aspirationalin nature, at the beginning of the codereflect the commonly-accepted basicmoral principles. These are beneficenceand nonmaleficence, fidelity andresponsibility, integrity, justice andrespect for people’s rights and dignity.These principles tie the code moreclosely to philosophy and biomedicalethics which students are likely to haveencountered before they study thepsychology code. (e.g. Beauchamp andChildress, 2001). I find this makes thecode revision easier to teach.New StandardsIn the revision, teaching no longershares a section with research. Section7 is now titled “Education and Training.”There are several substantive changesof interest to teachers of psychology.Two standards are new:Standard 7.04, Student Disclosure ofPersonal Information. Psychologistsdo not require students or superviseesto disclose personal information incourse or program-related activities,either orally or in writing, regardingsexual history, history of abuse andneglect, psychological treatment andrelationships with parents, peers andspouses or significant others except if(1) the program or training facility hasclearly identified this requirement in itsadmissions and program materials or (2)the information is necessary to evaluateor obtain assistance for students whosepersonal problems could reasonably bejudged to be preventing them fromperforming their training orprofessionally-related activities in acompetent manner or posing a threat tothe students or others. (AmericanPsychological Association, 2002)This standard protects students fromunexpected course or programrequirements to write papers about orto disclose in class certain aspects oftheir personal lives, unless they are ina training program where their mentalhealth becomes an issue.For example, in the undergraduatepsychology major at XYZ University, acourse in either child development oradolescence is required of all students.It is apparent from reading the syllabushanded out the first day of class that apaper is to be written on humandevelopment. Professor Earnest believesit is not unimportant that students havebeen children themselves. She thinksthat building the students’ understandingof childhood upon their own experienceswill promote long-term retention of thecourse material. She therefore requiresthat students write a reflective papereither analyzing their relationships withtheir parents and how this hasinfluenced their adult behavior ordiscussing the process of their ownawareness of their sexuality.According to new Section 7.04, thisassignment can no longer be arequirement of the course. It may be anoption, but an alternative activity needsto be provided. For undergraduates, it isnot realistic to identify this requirementin admissions materials, as manystudents do not think carefully aboutcourse requirements when selecting amajor. But it does seem reasonable toidentify it clearly in course materials thatare available to potential enrollees.NOVEMBER 2006 4