counselors ignoring the fundamental issues in the assessment of clients from different backgrounds) and went an extra mile to discuss its meaning. Secondly, the writer speaks on her stand over the authors’ conclusion, supporting the conclusion. Additionally, the conclusion was compared to other relevant materials in agreement with the conclusion (Eriksen, Kress, & Dixon, 2014).
In relating the ideology of the authors to ethics, the writer believed the counselors behaved unethically. Relating the conclusion to ethics was important to enable a reader understand the reason for agreeing with the authors’ conclusion. Furthermore, the discussion pointed out the consequences likely to occur when counselors ignore the background of their clients. The writer reports “This platform of reasoning used by counselors is highly unethical as it can lead to poor diagnosis practices." Therefore, any reader going through the discussion will be able to understand that counselors have got a moral code of conduct upon which they operate. However, the author did not provide an explanation of what the counselors can do to work in line with the codes of ethics (Hays & Erford, 2009).
The discussion is subject to critic as it fails to explain the circumstances pointed out by the authors that lead to counselors’ ignorance of the client’s backgrounds. Moreover, the writer failed to provide examples of how the lack of adherence to a client’s history has affected client’s response to therapy. Despite the critic, I consider the discussion to be excellent in providing a general understanding of the conclusion as well as the writer’s stand.
References
Eriksen, K., Kress, V. E., & Dixon, A. L. (2014). Multicultural Diagnosis and Conceptualization.
Hays, D. G., & Erford, B. T. (2009). Developing Multicultural Counseling Competency: A Systems Approach. Prentice Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment