When the subject is ethics, so many licensing exams, graduate courses, and workshops focus almost exclusively on formal ethics codes, their history and evolution, their relation to legal standards, and figuring out what code sections might be applicable to specific situations.
It is as if we could find the answers to our ethical questions in the code itself if we knew it well enough, tuned into its wisdom through the static, and understood what it was telling us to do. However, knowing what the code and what it says about a particular situation is the beginning, not the end, of ethical consideration.
“Awareness of the ethics codes is crucial to competence in the area of ethics, but the formal standards are not a substitute for an active, deliberative, and creative approach to fulfilling our ethical responsibilities. They prompt, guide, and inform our ethical consideration; they do not preclude or serve as a substitute for it. There is no way that the codes and principles can be effectively followed or applied in a rote, thoughtless manner. Each new client, whatever his or her similarities to previous clients, is a unique individual. Each situation also is unique and is likely to change significantly over time. The explicit codes and principles may designate many possible approaches as clearly unethical. They may identify with greater or lesser degrees of clarity the types of ethical concerns that are likely to be especially significant, but they cannot tell us how these concerns will manifest themselves in a particular clinical situation. They may set forth essential tasks that we must fulfill, but they cannot tell us how we can accomplish these tasks with a unique client facing unique problems. . . . There is no legitimate way to avoid these struggles.” (Pope & Vasquez, Ethics in Psychotherapy & Counseling, 2nd Edition, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998).
A key to these personal struggles to figure out “what is ethical?” in a complex, unique, constantly changing situation is maintaining mindful awareness of the ways in which all of us are vulnerable to cognitive strategies that allow us to evade ethical responsibilities.
These cognitive strategies may rely on subtle rationalizations, appealing fallacies, spin, double-speak, or Alice-in-Wonderland maneuvers to make even the most selfish, careless, harmful, or inhumane behavior come across as an ethical necessity.
We believe that the overwhelming majority of psychologists are conscientious, caring individuals, committed to ethical behavior. We also believe that none of us is infallible and that probably all of us, at one time or another, have been vulnerable to at least a few of these ethical fallacies, and might be able extend the list.
If some fallacies seem absurd and laughable, it is likely that we ourselves have not yet needed to resort to those particular cognitive strategies. At some future moment of great stress or exceptional temptation, those ethical fallacies may gain considerable plausibility if not a comforting certitude.
What sorts of cognitive maneuvers can transform unethical behavior into the ethical ideal? Here are a few. We encourage readers to expand the list.
It’s not unethical as long as a managed care administrator or insurance case reviewer required or suggested it.
It’s not unethical if we can use the passive voice and look ahead. If it is discovered that our c.v. is full of degrees we never earned, positions we never held, and awards we never received, all we need do is nondefensively acknowledge that mistakes were made and it’s time to move on.
It’s not unethical if we’re victims. Claiming tragic victim status is easy: we can always use one of 2 traditional scapegoats: (a) our “anything-goes” society that lacks clear standards and leaves us ethically adrift or, conversely, (b) our coercive, intolerant society that tyrannizes us with “political correctness,” dumbs us down, and controls us like children. Imagine, e.g., we are arrested for speeding while drunk, and the person whose car we hit presses vengeful charges against us.. We show ourselves as the real victim by pointing out that some politically-correct, self-serving tyrants have hijacked the legal system and unfairly demonized drunk driving. These powerful people of bad character and evil motivation refuse to acknowledge that most speeding while drunk is not only harmless -- actuarial studies show that only a small percentage of the instances of drunk speeding actually result in harm to people or property -- but also sometimes unavoidable, profoundly ethical, and a social good, getting drivers to their destinations faster and in better spirits. We stress that any studies seeming to show drunk speeding is harmful are not just unscientific (e.g., none randomly assigns drivers to drunk speeding and non-drunk speeding conditions) but hopelessly biased (e.g., focusing on measures of harm but failing to include measures sensitive to the numerous benefits of drunk speeding).
It’s not unethical if the American Psychological Association or a similar organization allows it.
It’s not unethical if we acknowledge the importance of judgment, consistency, and context. For example, it may seem as if a therapist who has submitted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bogus insurance claims for patients he never saw might have behaved “unethically.” However, as attorneys and others representing such professionals often point out: It was simply an error in judgment, completely inconsistent with the high ethics manifest in every other part of the persons’ life, and insignificant in the context of the unbelievable good that this person does.
It’s not unethical as long as no law was broken.
It’s not unethical if we can say any of the following about it (feel free to extend the list):
“What else could I do?”
“Anyone else would’ve done the same thing.”
“It came from the heart.”
“I listened to my soul.”
“I went with my gut.”
“It was the smart thing to do.”
“It was just common sense.”
“I just knew that’s what the client needed.”
“I’d do the same thing again if I had it to do over.”
“It worked before.”
“I’m only human, you know!”
“What’s the big deal?”
It’s not unethical if we have written an article, chapter, or book about it.
It’s not unethical as long as we can name others who do the same thing.
It’s not unethical as long as we didn’t mean to hurt anyone.
It’s not unethical even if our acts have caused harm as long as the person harmed has failed to behave perfectly, is in some way unlikable, or is acting unreasonably.
It’s not unethical as long as we were under a lot of stress. No fair-minded person would hold us accountable when it is clear that it was the stress we were under--along with all sorts of other powerful factors--that must be held responsible.
It’s not unethical as long as no one ever complained about it.
It’s not unethical as long as we know that the people involved in enforcing standards (e.g., licensing boards or administrative law judges) are dishonest, stupid, destructive, and extremist; are unlike us in some significant way; or are conspiring against us.
It’s not unethical as long as it results in a higher income or more prestige (i.e., is necessary).
It’s not unethical as long as the client asked us to do it.
It’s not unethical as long as it would be almost impossible to do things another way.
It’s not unethical if we could not (or did not) anticipate the unintended consequences of our acts.
It’s not unethical as long as there is no body of universally accepted, methodologically perfect (i.e., without any flaws, weaknesses, or limitations) studies showing -- without any doubt whatsoever -- that exactly what we did was the necessary and sufficient proximate cause of harm to the client and that the client would otherwise be free of all physical and psychological problems, difficulties, or challenges. This view was succinctly stated by a member of the Texas pesticide regulatory board charged with protecting Texas citizens against undue risks from pesticides. In discussing Chlordane, a chemical used to kill termites, one member said, “Sure, it’s going to kill a lot of people, but they may be dying of something else anyway” (“Perspectives,” Newsweek, April 23, 1990, p. 17).
It’s not unethical as long as there are books, articles, or papers claiming that it is the right thing to do.
It’s not unethical as long as we can find a consultant who says its OK.
Remaining mindfully aware of the ways that each of us as individuals may be vulnerable -- particularly at times of stress or fatigue, of great temptation or temporary weakness -- to these cognitive strategies may be an important aspect of our ability to respond ethically to difficult, complex, constantly evolving situations, particularly at moments when we are not at our best.
As mentioned earlier, one of our basic assumptions is that the overwhelming majority of psychologists are conscientious, caring individuals, committed to ethical behavior. Learning about the ethics code is important, but ethics education and resources are likely to be more helpful to us if they view what the code says about a specific situation as the beginning -- not the end -- of ethical considerations. Our ethical judgment strengthens as we discover our own individual patterns of ethical attention, perception, reflection, and judgment -- including our blind spots, weaknesses, biases, and vulnerabilities to particular ethical fallacies.
Our ability to recognize ethical fallacies as we are falling prey to them, and to avoid -- however reluctantly -- their seeming rewards may be as influential to an ethical response as a knowledge of the ethics code.
This excerpt is from What Therapists Don’t Talk About and Why: Understanding Taboos That Hurt Us and Our Clients by Kenneth S. Pope, PhD, ABPP, Janet Sonne, Ph.D., and Beverly Greene, Ph.D., ABPP., published by APA Books (copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association). The book discusses persistent myths about therapists and topics that are often short-changed in training programs and difficult to engage. The book’s model of learning encourages a mindful awareness of how we respond to the complex, messy situations that occur in real life, and emphasizes the need for openness, honesty, courage, and constant questioning. For more information, please see http://kspope.com/taboo.php. Copies may be ordered from the American Psychological Association (1-800-374-2721).
