This is a response to discussion post. Response prompt(s) (please bold if possible),
Respond by Day 6 to at least one of your colleagues’ postings. Respond in one or more of the following ways:
Ask a probing question.
Share an insight from having read your colleague’s posting.
Offer and support an opinion.
Validate an idea with your own experience.
Make a suggestion.
Expand on your colleague’s posting
__________________________________________
CLASSMATES POSTING:
“The two principles selected for this discussion are Fidelity and Responsibility and Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity from the American Psychological Association (2003) Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.
Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility:
The APA (2003) noted that Fidelity and Responsibility (FR) re related to the honest relationships and professional standards which professions need to adhere to, The APA (2003) continued to state that this includes transparency in the professional’s role within the community and throughout the research. According to the APA (2003) this includes the responsibility to avoid conflict in relationships that could lead to exploitation and/or harm of an individual or group. The APA (2003) stated that his is done through consultation with other professionals and groups. Simply stated this means that there are checks and balances with other professionals to insure the utmost ethical treatment of individuals and/or groups. The APA (2003) also reported that each professional is responsible for reporting any known unethical behavior of others. The APA (2003) further noted that psychologists give a portion of their time to research for little to no profit.
Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity:
The APA (2003) reported that in relation to Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity (RPRD) psychologists must respect individual’s and group’s dignity and right to privacy. The APA (2003) noted that this is especially true for those who have impairments related to autonomous decision making. Walden University, LLC (2009) described two such groups as those who are incarcerated and those who have intellectual impairments. The APA (2003) also reported the need to take other factors into consideration such as culture, role, gender, religion, and other factors. The APA (2003) reported that psychologist’s work on eliminating their own bias for these factors to ethically conduct research.
Prediction of how the two ethical principles might be revised in the future. Why these principles might be revised.
Due to changes in life and technology there will always be a need to update and revise the codes of ethics. For example, with FR we might eventually have to redefine what a conflictual relationship might be. 20 Years ago relationships were generally defined as meeting and knowing someone in real life. Today there are many cyber relationships through social media and other platforms. This means that any individual can be in contact with or have formed an opinion of hundreds of distant individuals. A psychologist could have a preconceived opinion of an individual and/group based on their cyber profile. While this may or may not be an accurate opinion it could lead to bias in the research or treatment of the individual or group.
This could be similar for RPRD as the researchers might have an erroneous view of individuals or groups based on social media. In both cases it could also infringe on the individual’s or group’s ability to consent to research as they may have an incorrect view, positive or negative, about the researcher that gives them a bias to consent to be part of the research program.
Another area of revision might be to update the specific needs of minors and those who are governed by guardianship. Young and Kenny (2022) noted that these individuals are consented to the research by guardians and might not fully understand the harm that can be done. For example, Young and Kenny (2022) reported that a guardian might see the subject of bullying as less traumatic than the subject of suicide. This does not consider that the minor or individual under guardianship might view these as equally traumatizing and suffer from harm related to the research.
What the revision might look like and why.
Because of the issues with minors and those under guardianship Young and Kenny (2022) suggested adding 5 other elements to the code of ethics including consideration and symptom testing to make sure that individuals are not being triggered or taking on symptoms of trauma. As it related to technology some revisions might include guidelines for professions related not only to their professional presence but also to their personal profiles. One such issue, certain details have been changed for confidentiality, an individual called for therapeutic services with an issue that was disturbing socially. The clinician who took the call later posted on her social media that others should stay away from tis person and stated the person’s name. At that time social media was relatively new. There were no guidelines related to it. The employer, however, was made aware of the post actions were taken due to the breach of confidentiality. The clinician did not feel that she had done anything wrong as it was her private page.
In these cases revisions might take the form of adding specific guidelines or actual laws to help enforce the ethical treatment within research. Vulnerable areas addressed in this discussion are minors, those who are under guardianship, and technology. These areas need to be constantly monitored and revised as they are ever changing.
References
American Psychological Association. (2003). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Links to an external site. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspxLinks to an external site..
Walden University, LLC. (Executive Producer). (2009). Understanding Forensic Psychology Research: Ethics. Baltimore: Author.
Young, G. & Kenny, M. C. (2022). Focusing the APA Ethics Code to Include Development: Applications to Abuse. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma. Sep2022, p1-14. “
