Ethical and Legal Issues in Professional Counseling

Introduction
During professional counseling, particular issues need to be resolved before the [process of counseling is commenced. These queries mostly relate to ethics and the law. Since professional counseling is a profession like any other, it is
important that those who ply the trade adhere to certain ethical considerations. Ethical and legal issues do become necessary in professional counseling for the purpose of maintaining proper standards and respecting the privacy and wishes of the client. To this end, research has established certain ethical and legal considerations that a professional must adhere to in practice.
Brief Perspective
Researchers, practitioners, and scholars in the field of professional counseling have come up with particular models that establish appropriate conduct and detail the steps one should follow during therapy. It must be remembered that professional counseling, just like medicine, treasures confidentiality and proper processes (Forester-Miller & Davis, 1995). In this regard, there is always the need to protect the confidences that clients repose in counselors and understand the codes of conduct established by peer-reviewed models.
Decision-making models can be categorized into three: theory-based, practice-based and process-based models. Notable theories include the Cottone model (Cottone & Claus, 2000) developed in 2001, Kitchener (1984) and the Stadler model established in 1986. Other theories include the Hill Glasser and Harden’s design that draws from feminist theory (Hill, Glaser, & Harden, 1998). It was first developed in 1995. The American Counseling Association has developed its model of ethical decision making (which will be discussed in this paper). In addition to the model proposed by the American Counseling Association, an ethical model that was developed by Karin Jordan will form part of the discussion.
The ACA Model versus Karin Jordan’s Model
Kitchener identified some unimpeachable moral considerations that the counselor should be aware of before starting the counseling process. These principles include autonomy, which means that there should be a level of independence in the counseling process (Smith, McGuire, Abbott & Blau, 1991). Because people have different value systems, they tend to appreciate phenomena differently. There would be no independence or autonomy if the client had no say in the decision-making process. As a corollary, the principle of autonomy indicates a conscious choice not to heed the opinions of people who are of unsound mind or lack the legal capacity to make decisions (children and individuals of unsound mind).
Nonmaleficence suggests a duty by the therapist not to harm the client. It is also known as the do no harm principle. Thirdly, there is the principle of beneficence, which implies a duty on the counselor always to act in the best interests of the client. The professional should strive to affect the lives of his/her client positively. In this regard, it is expected that the will benefit from the exercise. Another moral principle that Kitchener identifies is that of justice. Justice, in this case, does not imply the equal treatment of everyone. Kitchener describes it as “equal treatment for equals” and vice versa, with due regard to their peculiar circumstances. The last moral consideration suggested by Kitchener is that of fidelity. Under the duty of fidelity, the counselor owes the client a certain amount of loyalty and confidence. Thus, the therapist should treat all communication and correspondence between him/her and the client private unless ordered to do otherwise by a competent authority.
The ACA ethical decision-making model adopts a seven-step process that is informed by the writings of Kitchener, Stadler, and Van Hoose and Paradise (1979). In a nutshell, the seven sequential steps are as hereby pronounced: problem identification; applying the ACA ethical code; establishing the nature and extent of the problem and brainstorming possible courses of action. The fifth step in the ACA model requires the practitioner to consider all the permutations of the problem and come up with a plan that works. Finally, the counselor is supposed to evaluate the chosen course of action and then implement it.
On the other hand, Karin Jordan’s ethical decision-making model establishes a ten step process with which to base one’s actions (Jordan, 2003). While dealing with crises during counseling, Karin Jordan recommends that the first step to follow is to identify ethical concerns that arise within the context of the crisis. A possible crisis would be disaster mental health management. Cases of mental health are difficult to treat, and Jordan recommends that the counselor should consider the personal beliefs as well as the value system for the therapist.  One should also consider the limits of his skills and knowledge. Since the role of the counselor is to better the life of the client, one should be careful to know his/her limits and value system. The third step in the process is to identify the requisite code of ethics. After the identification of the relevant code of ethics, the counselor moves on to step 4, which is to consider all the ethical traps raised by the dilemma (Jordan & Stevens, 2001).
The fifth step in Jordan’s model requires the counselor to come up with a putative response to the dilemma. While coming up with a preliminary response mechanism, Jordan advises that counselors should evaluate all the consequences of that course of action. The seventh step is to come up with an ethical resolution to the dilemma. The moral decision is a stand on the ethical issues raised. For instance, if a student needs counseling and wishes his teachers or parents not to be involved, a decision must be made upon consideration of all laws, guidelines and codes of conduct dealing with the matter.  The eighth step implies the gathering of feedback and responses from other professionals in the field.  After gathering the opinion of peers, one proceeds to the ninth step, which entails the taking of appropriate action. The final step in this model is to review all the outcomes of the process with a view to further learning. In this way, the professional can learn how not to go about the process as well as improving on one’s skills and competencies.
Comparisons and parallels can be drawn from these two ethical decision-making models. The first obvious comparison is that they all respect the five moral principles that should guide the counselor in the decision-making process. There is the duty to always act in the best interests of the client, the duty to treat the process with the highest degree of confidentiality.  Further, both models place a premium on getting the process right. There are checks and balances established in both systems that guarantee the integrity of the process. In the ACA model, one is supposed to brainstorm, and through a process of elimination and deduction, come up with the best policy. Step 8 and 10 of Jordan’s model requires the professional to seek feedback from other professionals while step 10 requires a review of the action taken, post facto. These two stages are not explicitly mentioned in the ACA model. Aside from these two, the two models seem to complement each other. The clinical precision used in both models is similar. The steps are almost similar too, although the Jordan model is a bit detailed and designed for managing terrible crises such as mental illness.
Efficacy of the Models in Solving Legal-Ethical Dilemmas
The two models discussed above have varying degrees of success, although both have been proven to work.  The ACA model was specially developed by the American Counseling Association to guide members on appropriate causes of action.  The use of the ACA model has resulted in some real successes. Since the ACA model is the widely used professional counseling model in the United States, given the level of persuasion such a professional body has in America.  Additionally, the Jordan Model proposed by the scholar Karin has proven popular. It should be remembered that most ethical models are proven and tested through scientific research with the use of actual victims.
The implication of this is that there is a high threshold for evidence required to declare any particular model efficient. As things stand, it becomes increasingly easy to test the veracity of each model. Since the ACA model is the one adopted by most professionals given the fact that it is a brainchild of the professional organization representing professional counselors, it is adequate to state that it has been successful over the years. The steps are sequential, reasonable and in agreement with the five moral principles suggested by Kitchener.  They abide by the universality accepted practice of confidentiality, autonomy, and beneficence. Ditto the Jordan model. The Jordan Model is a bit detailed than the ACA model, but the spirit behind it draws primarily from the ACA principles.
When used diligently and in conjunction with other tested and proven models as conceived and promulgated by scholars, the two models are in tandem with accepted practice in professional counseling. When addressing legal and ethical dilemmas, we realize that they encapsulate all the legal-ethical dilemmas present in a counseling situation. There is the requirement that the professional should at all times consider the interest of the client. After the patient’s interest and values have been established and determined with a certain degree of certainty, the professional is required to brainstorm and come up with alternative and possible means of addressing the ethical dilemma. In the Jordan model, there is the requirement that the professional evaluate his personal value code and check if they fly in the face of the code of ethics established by the ACA. The ACA upholds this principle, albeit with little modifications. All in all, the two methods have been proven to work and are in fact the benchmark for ethical and legal considerations before a professional handles a client.
Applying the Two Models to a Practical Situation
Suppose a student or any other person seeks counseling regarding any issue that may be troubling the person. Suppose, also that the situation is that of a student seeking therapy after reporting being abused by the guardian. Applying the two models to the case, one should be careful first to ensure that the issues under deliberation have been established. One would thus ask questions about the student’s family background, views and opinions and how they perceive the injury. After establishing this for a fact, the counselor would then apply the relevant and existing code or codes of ethics. In this case, the code to be applied would be the ACA code of ethics.
Under the law, professionals are always required to act in the best interest of the client, having regard to the circumstances of the case. After applying the code of ethics, the counselor then moves to determine the extent of the problem. Is the student sexually or physically abused?  Has the student confided in anyone about the problem? What is the reaction of the guardians when approached with the issue? These are some of the questions that one must ask before brainstorming possible solutions. After this has been established, I would then proceed with the process of seeking out possible ways to address the problem. Some of the ways would be to report the case to the Department of Social Services or the police, as the case may be.  The decision is not to be made lightly since there are a lot of factors that might affect it. For instance, our personal views about child abuse might cloud our judgment and lead to rash decisions.
Further, it is important to try and get the perspective of the alleged perpetrators to make an informed decision. After all these considerations, one must settle on a specified course of action. In this case, one may decide to contact Social Services and the police to report the abuse while trying to counsel the student. It is important that the one evaluates all the contours of the problem before settling on a specified course of action. Upon implementation of the idea, it is always wise to go back and review the decision for the purpose of keeping abreast with any further developments in the case.














References
Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: A review of the literature. Journal of counseling and development: JCD, 78(3), 275.
Forester-Miller, H., & Davis, T. E. (1995). A practitioner's guide to ethical decision making. American Counseling Association.
Hill, M., Glaser, K., & Harden, J. (1998). A feminist model for ethical decision making. Women & Therapy, 21(3), 101-121.
Jordan, K. (2003). Clinical Training of Graduate Students. The Clinical Supervisor, 21(1), 29-38.
Jordan, K., & Stevens, P. (2001). Teaching ethics to graduate students: A course model. The Family Journal, 9(2), 178-184.
Smith, T. S., McGuire, J. M., Abbott, D. W., & Blau, B. I. (1991). Clinical ethical decision making: An investigation of the rationales used to justify doing less than one believes one should. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22(3), 235.