M5A2

Phyllis Lovering

Argosy Online

10-23-2017

Ethical decision-making model

Making moral or ethical decisions in forensic psychology is of concern to academics and practitioners. Many intentional and unintentional factors can contribute to clear misconduct or ethically questionable conduct when psychologists are addressing ethical issues. However, they can prevent such problems from succeeding and ensure adherence to high standards by committing to ethical ideals that are meant to resolve ethical challenges (Neal, 2010). Several ethical-decision-making models have been provided to help psychologists arrive at ethical decisions in various settings, including that proposed by Bush et al. (2006).

Most of the previous models emphasized on five valuable steps of decision-making that included the “identification of the problem, development of alternatives, evaluation of alternatives, implementation of the best option, and evaluation of the results” (Neal, 2010). However, the models could not adequately address situational and emotional factors, or the urgency to respond to certain situations. Emotional and situational factors may influence the psychologist’s interventions, and thus the need for a psychologist to indulge in self-care activities, realize when his personal emotional needs inhibit sound judgment and stay focused to face situational pressures (Neal, 2010). Psychologists also need to anticipate potential ethical challenges and developed a course of action that they can implement when needed, which may best address the need for urgent responses to certain situations. Therefore, Bush et al. (2006) considered these factors that the earlier model did not recognize in their proposed eight steps ethical decision-making model while still retain the previous five.

The first step involves identifying the problem. Forensic Psychologists may find this step easy when dealing with a clearly ethical or unethical behavior (Bush et al., 2006). However,

most of the behaviors considered are ambiguous and may require practitioners to parse out ethical, moral, legal and professional perspectives to clarify the ethical dilemma. The second step entails examining the significance of the context and setting. Some ethical rules that are appropriate in one context or setting may be inappropriate or less relevant in others. Therefore, psychologists should first consider whether they are competent in the setting or context proposing the issues to determine if they can work the case through all relevant stages. The third step requires practitioners to identify and utilize ethical and regal resources (Bush et al., 2006). It needs them to implement the general rule from published resources to specific cases, and many find the step challenging since different resources may offer conflicting guidance to solving ethical issues. Psychologists need to assess the foundational values underlying a given law or ethical standard such as the right to sufficient health care to help arrive at the appropriate course of action. They must also have adequate knowledge of the laws that regulate their profession and the relevant Codes of Ethics.

The fourth step recommends psychologists to evaluate their personal beliefs and values to understand their biases and ascertain the impact these factors have on their decision making. They may sometimes rely on personal values and beliefs rather than professional ethics, which may reduce their impartiality and objectivity. The fifth step entails coming up with possible solutions to the problem. It is important for the practitioners to outline all possible solutions and then impartially choose the one that holds the least risk and best benefit to the client and the society at large (Bush et al., 2006). Once they have developed all the possible decisions, the sixth step involves considering the potential consequences of all of them, both positive and negative.

Ethical decision-making model

Psychologists must then weigh the benefits and risks before deciding on the most ethical and positive option for solving the problem.

The seventh step involves choosing and implementing a course of action. It is critical to determine the most appropriate time to apply the course of action in order to realize the most significant result. Finally, psychologists must do a follow up to evaluate the outcome and implement changes where necessary (Bush et al., 2006). Since the chosen decision may not be satisfactory to all the parties involved, the psychologist should be willing to acknowledge and accept criticism from other and respond to them appropriately. Similarly, he must assess the effectiveness of his own decision and implement changes as needed.

In their model, Bush et al. (2006) emphasized the need for psychologists to develop a sense of divergence when facing conflicts of interest to elicit ethicality and be valuable to the legal system. The model touches all codes and guidelines outlined in both The Forensic Psychologists Specialty Guidelines and APA Ethics Code when solving an ethical problem (Swanepoel, 2010). The decision-making process strategically analyzes the importance of reducing bias and acknowledges the potential advance impacts of personal beliefs and values. In addition, the model highlights the need of a professional to remain objective as it can help him to learn and gain an understanding of a scenario’s setting and context and determine his appropriateness to address it. On the other hand, the model is associated with some limitations. Some psychologists perceive the lengthy model as a redundant and unnecessary to follow, especially with many of the steps overlapping and some repeating the previous steps. For

Ethical decision-making model

example, the fifth, sixth and seventh steps all results to a similar answer, which is the best solution and potential consequences.

In conclusion, the model forces psychologists to employ all possible angles when approaching a problem, which is likely to produce a solution that is driven by ethical motivation rather than personal bias.

References

Bush, S. S., Connell, M. A., & Denney, R. L. (2006). Ethical practice in forensic psychology: A systematic model for decision making. American Psychological Association.

Neal, T. M. (2010). Choosing the lesser of two evils: A framework for considering the ethics of competency-for-execution evaluations. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10(2), 145-157.

Swanepoel, M. (2010). Ethical decision-making in forensic psychology. Koers, 75(4), 851-872.