Essay Example on Psychology: APA Code of Ethics & Moral Obligations

The code of ethics reflects the moral principles underlying the practical values of every profession, and psychology is no different. In most cases, ethical practices enable people to fulfill the essential moral obligations to engage in healthful behaviors, not to do any harm, treat individuals fairly and equally, and to respect others. As a result, the American Psychological Association (APA) formulated the ethical principles and code of conduct, also known as the code of ethics, to guide the activities of psychologists towards achieving their moral obligations. The APA code of ethics comprises four sections, including the introduction, preamble, general principles, and specific ethical standards (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). Each chapter provides different guidelines that enable psychologists to maintain high standards of competence in their work. For instance, while the introduction segment addresses the scope of application of the code of ethics, the preamble, and general principles consist of the objectives that control psychologists towards the highest ideals of psychology. As a result, the analysis conducted in this paper focusses on examining and reviewing the APA code of ethics. Besides, the review addresses how psychologists’ biasness in custody or divorce cases and offering preferential treatments in their court reports is an ethical violation.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The code of ethics mainly applies to the practice of psychology and acts as part of the educational, scientific, and professional responsibilities of psychologists. It covers several fields such as teaching, the training of psychology in school, counseling, clinical duties, social intervention, supervision of trainees, and research. Despite providing the rules and principles, the code of ethics does not necessarily determine by itself if psychologists are liable in a court of law or not upon violating the ethical standards. Instead, the APA and other organizations adopt the measures to offer guidance for psychologists towards achieving morally accepted professional behaviors. However, in some cases, psychologists find themselves engaging in psychological practices that violate the principles outlined by the APA code of ethics.

With the increasing number of divorce cases today, clinical psychologists have had new opportunities due to the rise in demand for forensic psychology. These professionals serve the population in several ways; for example, they act as a parent coordinator, co-parent counselor, collaborative divorce mental health professional, or even custody evaluator (Zimmerman et al., 2009). In each role, psychologists face different challenges, which increases the ethical and legal risks of violating the guidelines provided by the APA code of ethics.

In some cases, the professionals and parents agree without the necessary knowledge about the ethical practices and roles of psychologists. An example of an ethical violation occurs when psychologists become biased or unfair in cases concerning divorce and child custody. It can happen through offering preferential treatments in the court reports in favor of one party (parent), which can influence or convince the court to select that specific party for primary or sole custody. The unfair treatment can be triggered by receiving different forms of bribes or even having a sexual relationship with a particular client.

By engaging in such unfair treatment, a psychologist violates several ethical principles and ethical standards. For example, offering preferential treatment to one parent in a child custody or divorce cases violate principle A, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Therefore, psychologists must perform their duties in a way that they do not harm but safeguard the patients' interests (APA, 2017). Consequently, they must not misuse their influence to impact the clients’ lives negatively.

However, in this case, the psychologist has used his or her position to influence the court’s ruling, and therefore violating the code of ethics principle A. On the other end, the psychologist’s actions in this case scenario violate the APA code of ethics’ principle C on integrity. The system requires and guides psychologists to always remain honest and transparent in their practices, and the presentation of their judgment should be accurate and truthful (APA, 2017). In other words, the principle prohibits professionals from engaging in fraudulent actions, cheating, and stealing. However, in this case, the psychologist has violated this code because of internationally misrepresenting facts in the court reports, to favor one parent.

Also, preferential treatment of one client against the other violates the fourth principle in the APA code of ethics. It is because the clinical professional was not only bias in the reports provided, but also his biasness influenced the court to make an unjust and unfair ruling. The code, which is about justice, requires psychologists to observe equality and ensure that all patients are entitled to fair and just psychological practices (APA, 2017). The principle guides them to be aware of their biases and always make judgments that are free from self-bias and incompetency. Also, they must remain mindful of their limitations of expertise and the levels of their competence.

Apart from the general principles, the code of ethics also consists of ethical standards or enforceable rules for psychological practice. The case scenario presented in this analysis seems to violate some of them, including the moral standard of "resolving ethical issues.” It is the first of the ten ethical standards, and it dictates that psychologists should take necessary measures to correct or reduce the misrepresentation of information on their reports (APA, 2017).

Upon realizing the potential harm to be caused by false information, the code needs the professionals to report or refer the violation to state or government ethics professionals. Besides, in a case where the psychologists’ ethical practices conflict with the legal rules, the code requires them to describe and resolve the conflict following the code of ethics. However, in this case, the psychologist internationally misrepresented the information on the report and did not consider resolving the issue.

The APA code of ethics highlights the aspect of human relations as an essential ethical standard for the practice of psychology. The first part of this code requires the professionals not to associate with activities that are discriminatory based on race, sexual orientation, gender, age, culture, socioeconomic status, or even state of physical disability (APA, 2017). Also, the code prohibits associating with clients on professional grounds but holding other financial or legal interests with them. It includes having or entering into multiple relationships with the clients, which is likely to minimize the competence, objectivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of the psychologist in the case. These ethical guidelines are all violated in this case scenario involving child custody. It is because the psychologist discriminated one party, formed a nonprofessional relationship with the other parent, and used the connection to influence the court’s decision on the parent for primary custody.

Noncompliance with the APA code of ethics and ethical standards present adverse effects on the validity of the case. The APA’s ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct require that psychologists establish competence in the field of practice of their choice (Greenberg et al., 2004). For instance, in a child custody case, the law permits courts and parents to hire professionals to assess and evaluate the issues and report their findings in an attempt to resolve the matter. The psychologists should consider the interests and psychological needs of the child and engage in culturally informed and non-discriminatory practices.

They must avoid developing conflicting and nonprofessional interests and relationships, obtain the appropriate informed consent, and provide non-biased reports. In such cases, the court solely relies on the opinions of the health professionals in making determinations, critical decisions, and the final verdict. Therefore, failure to observe the ethical guidelines in the assessment process can invalidate the case and cause severe damages to the children and their families (Greenberg et al., 2004).

Conclusion

In general, the psychological code of conduct and ethical standards aim at guiding psychologists on how to engage in the practice while observing fundamental moral obligations. The code of ethics requires health professionals to follow the ethical principles of justice, confidentiality, competence, integrity, non-discriminatory assessment, and honest opinions. In child custody or divorce cases, offering preferential treatment is a violation of the above stated ethical standards as outlined by the APA code of ethics. For instance, it violates Principle C that advocates for integrity and transparency in psychology practice. Also, the psychologist’s behavior is an infraction to ethical standards, such as developing conflicting interests and human relations, which prohibits nonprofessional connections and discrimination. Presentation of a report with such ethical breaches to the court renders the case invalid. It can have devastating psychological impacts on the children and severe damages to family and social structures.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf

Greenberg, L.R., Martindale, D.A., Gould, J.W., Gould-Saltman, D.J. (2004). Ethical issues in child custody and dependency cases: Enduring principle and emerging challenges. Journal of Child Custody, 1(1), 7-30. DOI: 10.1300/J190v01n01_02

Zimmerman, J., McGarrah, N.A., Ally, G.A., Hess, A.K., Benjamin, G.A.H., & Gollan, J.K. (2009). Ethical and professional considerations in divorce and child custody cases. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 539-549. DOI: 10.1037/a0017853