Comparison of Ethical Dilemmas Across Public and Private Sectors in Rehabilitation Counseling Practice

Abstract

Purpose:To examine the nature of ethical dilemmas most frequently reported by rehabilitation counselors in the private and public sectors and determine if significant differences exist in how practitioners experience ethical dilemmas in these two settings.Method:A mixed-methods internet-based survey design was utilized and included descriptive, qualitative, and quantitative approaches on a sample of rehabilitation counselors (N= 141) via an instrument created by the researchers.Results:The results indicate that there are clear differences between both the nature and frequency of ethical dilemmas encountered by practitioners in the private and public sectors of rehabilitation counseling. Findings indicate that there are significant differences not only in the frequency and importance each group attributes to ethical dilemmas but also in the types of ethical dilemmas experienced.Conclusion:Rehabilitation counselors in the private and public sectors practice in different environments (with varied laws, rehabilitation goals, duration of services), and minimal consideration has been given to the diversity of ethical dilemmas that these practitioners encounter in their professional roles. The inclusion of Section F in the 2010 CRCC Code of Ethics was the rehabilitation counseling field’s first attempt to address the differing nature of ethical dilemmas faced by private rehabilitation counselors in their practice. Further study is warranted to examine the dynamics that underlie the ethical decision-making process as well exploring the differences between these two settings.

Exploring Rehabilitation Counseling Supervisors’ Role in Promoting Counselor Development of Ethical Fluency

“…High-frequency ethical dilemmas were often reported as “minor” by supervisors. These areas centered on conduct and client relationships and are similar to previous findings of frequently reported ethical violations by Certified Rehabilitation Counselors (CRCs; Beveridge et al, 2015; Saunders et al, 2007). In addressing many of these high-frequency ethical dilemmas, the term “ethics” may not even be used as evidenced by the following quote: When a counselor or staff of mine comes in and says I have this issue, we might initially try to lay out what are the actions here, what are the issues, and I may not always use the term ethical issues.…”

“…High-frequency ethical dilemmas were often reported as "minor" by supervisors. These areas centered on conduct and client relationships and are similar to previous findings of frequently reported ethical violations by Certified Rehabilitation Counselors (CRCs; Beveridge et al, 2015;Saunders et al, 2007). In addressing many of these highfrequency ethical dilemmas, the term "ethics" may not even be used as evidenced by the following quote: Although on the surface this may seem like a positive outcome, the avoidance of the word "Ethics" in the course of these discussions keeps the counselor in a state of ignorance regarding the ethical ramifications of daily practice and reduces ethical fluency.…”

“…In addition, supervisor responses distinguished between high- and low-frequency ethical dilemmas. Low-frequency ethical dilemmas are violations that would be deemed egregious in nature (e.g., engaging in sexual relationships with a client) and were dealt with on an irregular and infrequent basis, again parallel to previous findings (Beveridge, Garcia, & Siblo, 2015; Saunders et al, 2007). High-frequency ethical dilemmas were often reported as “minor” by supervisors.…”

Dealing with uncertainty: A systematic approach to addressing value‐based ethical dilemmas in behavioral services

“…Value‐based dilemmas are goal‐oriented conflicts and thus are not unique to behavior analysts. Other professionals such as psychologists, educators, rehabilitation counselors, and speech‐language pathologists have the same struggles, for example, between following the principle of autonomy or that of nonmaleficence in some clinical cases (Akfert, 2012; Beveridge et al., 2015; Landes, 1999). In contrast, only behavior analysts would have debates concerning benefits versus risks of certain intervention strategies (e.g., the use of restrictive procedures to treat self‐injurious behaviors).…”

Ethical Dilemmas Experienced by Australian Rehabilitation Counsellors

“…Although studies concerning the ethical challenges facing rehabilitation counsellors exist and rehabilitation counselling research has succeeded in amassing a base of knowledge specific to private sector rehabilitation (Beveridge, Garcia, & Siblo, 2015;Kontosh, 2000;Lane et al, 2012;Tarvydas & Barros-Bailey, 2010;Wright et al, 1998), there is scant research regarding the ethical challenges faced by rehabilitation counsellors working in Australian private provider settings, and the impact of these challenges on practice. Kenny (1995) and Roberts-Yates (2003) have perhaps come closest to exploring the subjective experiences of rehabilitation professionals, noting that conflicts of interest, conflicts between stakeholders, and the attitudes of injured workers, pose a threat to rehabilitation services and outcomes.…”