Assessment Task 2 Research and ethical application (Case Vignettes)
Case 1: Kevin 1. The ethical standard or principle, legislation and provide reference/s
Australian Counselling Association - Code of Ethics and Practice
3.4 Confidentiality
(a) Confidentiality is a means
3.6 Exceptional Circumstances
(a) Exceptional circumstances may arise which give the counsellor goof grounds for believing that serious harm may occur to the client or to other people. In such circumstance the client’s consent to change in the agreement about confidentiality should be sought whenever possible unless there are also goof grounds for believing the client is no longer willing or able to take responsibility for his actions. Normally, the decision to break confidentiality should be discussed with the client and should be mad eonly after consultation with the counselling supervisor or if he/she not available, an experienced counsellor.
(b) Any disclosure of confidential information should be restricted to relevant information, conveyed only to appropriate people and for appropriate reasons likely to alleviate the exceptional circumstances. The ethical considerations include achieving a balance between acting in the best interests of the client and the counsellor’s responsibilities under the law and to the wider community.
(c) While counsellors hold different views about grounds for breaking confidentiality, such as potential self-harm, suicide, and harm to others they must also consider those put forward in this Code, as they too should imbue their practice. These views should be communicated to both clients and significant others e.g. supervisor, agency, etc.
Section A.2 of ASCA’s Ethical Standards for School Counsellors deals with confidentiality. Confidentiality is the cornerstone of ethical practice: The guarantee of privacy allows the counselee to build a trusting relationship with the counsellor. But school counsellors must bear in mind that confidentiality is never absolute, and that parents have a legal right “to control the professional services provided their children and to be involved in planning those services” (Glosoff & Pate, 2002, p.22). 2. Ethical trap possibilities eg objectivity, values and circumstantiality etc.
Another difference when working with children and young people is that of boundary keeping, especially confidentiality. Children and young people are, in general, much less autonomous than adults and have several groups of people interest in concerned for and responsible for their welfare. In our experience, to stick to the normal adult limits of confidentiality can risk alienating the peopleresponsible for the care of the child or young person and may ultimately put them at risk. The carer may feel that the child or young person is sharing ‘secrets’ that they feel threatened by or that you have an intimate connection with your client that could jeopardises the relationship they have. In order to keep this boundary sensitively, we need to develop communication skills that will allow us tell the carers enough to keep them involved but not enough to violate the child or young person’s privacy. Generalities such as “Things seem to be going well” or ‘How are you feeling about the therapy?’ may suffice but thought need to go into what it is OK to say and what not. Supervision can help with these decisions and, if possible, the client should also be involved. Sometimes the client wants you to act as a spokesperson for them to their carers so a careful discussion of what is to be shared is vital.
The parent has the right to know about anything discussed between a minor and the professional school counsellor. 3. Preliminary response
A professional school counsellor’s promise of confidentiality, or contract to respect a student’s right to privacy by not disclosing anything revealed during counselling, must not be breached by the counsellor except when there is clear and present danger to the student or to another person. A student has the right to privacy and confidentiality. However, personal or emotional counselling for minors in schools brings immediate tension between student’s right to privacy and their parent’s right to be the guiding force in the child’s social and emotional development (Isaacs & Stone, 1999; Remley & Herlihy, 2001). In particular, the parent has the right to know about anything discussed between a minor and the professional school counsellor.
Counsellors have an ethical responsibility to maintain each individual’s “right to privacy,” yet youth under the age of 18 are not always given this right (Glosoff & Pate, 2002).
Examples of legally and ethically mandated breaches of confidentiality include the following situations: * The client is younger than 18 years. The parent or legal guardian then has a legal right to the child’s counselling records and to be informed of the counselling content, progress, and other information. * The client expresses an intent to harm self, others, or property. Kachgian & felthous (2004) report that in cases of clients who are dangerous, courts in many states view a breach of confidentiality as an obligation. Wheeler and Bertram (2008) explained the immunity law that protects mental health professionals in reporting the threat of harm. * An adult client willingly provides written informed consent requesting the counsellor to breach confidentiality or to release counselling records. 4. Possibilities consequences of adopting this response

5. Ethical resolution
Disclosure includes the limits of confidentiality in a developmentally appropriate manner. Informed consent
Confidentiality is a primary concern in working with students who use and abuse drugs. The federal government has pass two laws that ensure theconfidentiality of anyone who is treated for alcohol or drug abuse. Those laws also protect the privacy of youngsters who receive school-based services (Office of Substance Abuse Program, 1992).
But what happens when school policy and the law conflict? Almost all schools prohibit the presence and use of alcohol and other drugs on school grounds, and many require that school personnel inform the administration of any student who has violated the school’s policy. Actually, there is no conflict here because the laws of confidentiality apply only to students who are receiving services for drug and alcohol abuse. As long as students are not being 6. Which aspect/s of this dilemma do you anticipate would be the most challenging for you to deal with? Why?
In absence of state legislation expressly forbidding disclosure, considers the ethical responsibility to provide information to an identified third party who, by his/her relationship with the student, is at a high risk of contracting a disease that is commonly known to be communicable and fatal.
No conscientious counsellor would want to place, or leave, a child or young person at evident risk of harm. However, the reality is that many young clients are already engaged in risky behaviour, or have a history of being abused, before coming into therapy. Adopting an ethically-informed stance of always reporting such risk or harm, against the client’s expressed wishes, runs the risk of breaking the therapeutic alliance, and even of the client later retracting, or minimising, their original disclosures. Daniels and Jenkins present a sustained argument for providing ‘confidential spaces’ in working with children and young people and suggest possible factors to consider, in deciding whether to initiate a report to the authorities (2010:99). This stance receives support from a perhaps surprising quarter. The NSPCC presented evidence to the Laming Review (2009), which argued for a ‘mixed economy’ of services for children, offering differing levels of confidentiality, in order to provide a range of choices and appropriate support for children and young people (2008: 32).
Confidential counselling can offer a safe space for young clients to disclose very private material, often relating to risk of harm or experience of abuse. Research by Rees et al. (n: 24) emphasises the key relational dimension to such disclosures, i.e. ‘a consistent relationship with a professional they felt they could trust’ (2010: 52). This finding is paralleled by Ungar at al. (2009) researching patterns of disclosure of abuse by young people in Canada (n: 1621). They describe such disclosure as ‘an interactive process’, a ‘co-construction.’ Disclosure of abuse depended heavily on the young person’s perception of quality of their relationship with a trust adult.
Brown (2006) found that school counsellors (n: 30) were often challenged by dilemmas around confidentiality, with competing demands for information from head or class teachers, and parents. Jenkins and Palmer (2012) found, in a relatively small-scale survey (n:6), that counsellors worked to protect client confidentiality as far as possible, with the exception of overt child protection incidents, in order to manage high levels of risk for young clients, without breaking the therapeutic frame. In a relatively rare piece of research, on the perceived benefits of supervision for school guidance counsellors in Australia, McMahon and Patton (n: 51) reported on the value of supervision as ongoing support, in ‘reducing the professional isolation’ of counsellors facing ethical and professional dilemmas (2000: 344).
When it come to issues of confidentiality and parents, school counsellors need to be wary of two types of parents: under-involved and over-involved. Under-involved parents are happy to give their informed consent and disengaged from the counselling process. They take comfort in the fact that their child is in the hands of a professional and feel relieved of any responsibility. Over-involved parents, on the other hand, constantly want to know what is going on in counsellingsessions and often feel threatened by the counselor’s “secret” knowledge of their child. It is crucial to establish a boundary around confidentiality. This statement maintains a healthy balance between protecting the confidentiality of the counselling relationship and establishing a collaborative relationship with a child’s parents or guardian.
Courts have not always recognized the right of minors to understand and consent to the counselling process, making confidentiality the most difficult ethical dilemma school counsellors experience (Isaacs & Stone, 1999).
Case 2: Conrad 1. The ethical standard or principle, legislation and provide reference/s
There are one ethical standards involved here (Boundaries and multiple relationships) that are difficult for professionals who work for organizations to resolve. Sexual and/or romantic counsellor-client interactions or relationships with current clients, their romantic partners, or their family members are prohibited. This prohibition applies to both in-person and electronic interactions or relationships.
Counsellors are prohibited from engaging in counselling relationships with persons with whom they have had a previous sexual and/or romantic relationship.

Sexual and/or romantic counsellor-client interactions or relationships with former clients, their romantic partners, or their family members are prohibited for a period of 5 years following the last professional contact. This prohibition applies to both in-person and electronic interactions or relationships. Counsellors, before engaging in sexual and/or romantic interactions or relationships with former clients, their romantic partners, or their family members, demonstrate forethought and document whether the interaction or relationship can be viewed as exploitive in any way and/or whether there is still potential to harm the former client; in cases of potential exploitation and/or harm, the counsellor avoids entering into such an interaction or relationship.
Counsellors consider the risks and benefits of extending current counselling relationships beyond conventional parameters. Examples include attending a client’s
Interim Code of Ethics of Psychotherapy & Counselling Federation of Australia’s
Dual and multiple relationships, as defined in the Definitions section of this Code, represent a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest are to be avoided, provided conflicts can be reasonably foreseen and prevented. In deciding how to respond to conflicts of interest, the protection of the client’s interests and trust in the practitioner is paramount. A. Practitioners consider their motivation, possible outcomes and implications of entering into dual or multiple relationships with current or former clients. Practitioners avoid entering into relationships, particularly sexual and romantic relationships, which are likely to be detrimental to their clients, third parties and the standing of the profession. Where dual and multiple relationships cannot be avoided, practitioners discuss the implications of this with their clients and seek guidance from their supervisors.
The possible impact of some forms of dual or multiple relationships, in terms of increased trust and deepening of the therapeutic relationship, are carefully considered to determine whether they are solely in the best interests of the client, for example, attending a client’s wedding at the request of the client. B. In small communities it may be difficult to avoid dual or multiple relationships. In these circumstances, the management of dual and multiple roles requires particular attention and guidance from a supervisor. C. Practitioners pay particular attention to avoiding romantic or sexual relationships with current or former clients.
(a) Practitioners do not engage in romantic or sexual relationship with clients or close members of a client’s family both during therapy and for a period of at least two years post-therapy.
(b) Practitioners do not engage in romantic sexual relationships with former clients even after a two-year interval except in the most exceptional circumstances.
D. While it is acknowledged that dual and multiple relationships are inevitable to some degree, the concurrent roles of trainer, supervisor and therapist are seen as completely distinct and practitioners are advised to avoid this form of dual relationship wherever possible.
Australian Counselling Association – Code of Ethics and Practice
3.9 Boundaries
(a) With Clients
i. Counsellors are responsible for setting and monitoring boundaries throughout the counselling sessions and will make explicit to clients that counselling is a formal and contracted relationship and nothing else. ii. The counselling relationship must not be concurrent with a supervisory, training or other form of relationship (sexual or non-sexual).
(b) With Former Clients
i. Counsellors remain accountable

2. Ethical trap possibilities eg objectivity, values and circumstantiality etc. 3. Preliminary response 4. Possibilities consequences of adopting this response 5. Ethical resolution 6. Which aspect/s of this dilemma do you anticipate would be the most challenging for you to deal with? Why?