Discussion 16 March – 22 March; Assessment Discussion Question:

What are the ethical issues involved with posting "do-it-yourself"

psychological testing on the internet? What are the benefits and harms to
making these tests available to the public? Do you think the benefits
outweigh the harm, or vice-versa?
There are many ethical issues involved with “do-it-yourself”
psychological testing. Some of these issues include lack of professional
guidance, self-diagnosing, privacy, and oversimplification.
Doing an online “test” for a mental illness can have serious consequences.
The lack of professional guidance can lead to misdiagnosis and can lead a
person to seek help for a problem they may not have. It can also lead to
oversimplification. A lot of online quizzes tend to categorize people based on
their opinions and feelings. With mental health, not everyone has the same
symptoms and to the same extent. As an example, if an individual believes
they are struggling with ADHD and decides to take an online test to see if
they have it, they can end up getting told that they do or do not have it. This
is a big problem because if that individual has struggles or barriers do to
having undiagnosed ADHD, they will continue to live with those struggles
thinking that it is normal; and vice versa.
Privacy is also a big ethical issue with these online tests. Most tests or
quizzes send the data to whomever created the survey, which in most cases is
someone just bored at home.
While there are many ethical issues, there are also some benefits to “DIY”
online tests. Some of the benefits could be awareness, education, and
accessibility.
While taking these online tests and quizzes can lead to oversimplification
and self-diagnosis/misdiagnosis, they can also lead to awareness and
education towards specific mental illnesses. For example, if an individual
decides to take a test to see if they have an anxiety disorder, they can possibly
get “diagnosed” with one. This can lead to them doing research and possibly
seeking professional help. It also may help break stigmas around mental
health. A lot, but not all tests give a result and might say, for example, “92%
of other people answered the same as you” and it could help others know
they are not alone in their feelings.
Accessibility is a big benefit as well. Many people do not have the ability
to go to a professional, whether held back by lack of funds or lack of
transportation and/or mobility. Having the ability to take a short quiz online
to see if you could possibly have a mental illness that validates your feelings
can be important to many. This ties back into the other benefits. By getting
the “you have this or that” show up after taking a mental health quiz, a person
can start doing research on that mental illness and find ways to healthily cope
with the symptoms.
I think that the harm and the benefits almost tie each other out. In most
ways, it can be harmful to the community, but it can also help people in the
community. In my personal opinion, the harm outweighs the benefits, but
only by a small amount (maybe like 60/40).

Discussion 23 March – 29 March; MRR Discussion Forum:

Please read the article posted on Moodle entitled “Boundary Issues: My
Therapist, Her Housekeeper, Immigration and Me.” That article
involves several ethical issues (not all relating to boundaries). Identify
and describe the multiple role relationship issues apparent in the article.
Were the ethical issues you have identified foreseeable to the therapist?
What should the therapist have done to avoid the issues at the beginning
of therapy? What should the therapist have done during the course of
the therapy relationship when the issues arose? What (if any) harm
resulted from the therapist’s behavior?
In this situation, the therapist created a multiple role relationship with
her client by asking her for advice about her personal life. As a therapist, she
should be focused on her client’s mental health and issues and not bring her
personal life and own issues into a session. The article states that the client
had probably mentioned her feeling about immigration coming from a
Mexican family. This crosses a border and can even be classified as
stereotyping since she asked her Mexican client about immigration for her
Mexican housekeeper’s issue. The article reads, “What made her think that I
had? Yes, I'm Mexican American, fourth-generation to be exact, but dealing
with immigration sweeps is not a part of my life, either.”
Some other ethical issues I noticed in the article would be the fact that
the therapist was working out of her own home. This could be okay, but it can
also make the client uncomfortable. In the beginning of the article, the client
talks about how her therapist was visibly well-off, just by her house alone.
This can be off putting to a client especially if they are in therapy for issues
such as dealing with anxiety and depression for struggling with family or
even stress about financially living paycheck to paycheck. She also mentions
how she does not know if the therapist could even understand her situations
or judge her for being Mexican, since they live entirely different lives.
Another issue that can come from doing therapy sessions in her own home, is
that it can expose the client’s information. An example of this could be like in
the article she mentioned hearing movement around the house during
sessions. If she was able to hear the housekeeper walking around the house
working, the housekeeper was probably able to hear the whole session. This
is a violation of privacy for the client. It breaks the ethical code of
confidentiality. It is also a risk because she may also keep her notes and files
in the home, where anyone who enters can spot them and see sensitive
information about the therapist’s clients.
The therapist could have avoided issues at the beginning of therapy by
making clear boundaries and maintaining only a professional relationship. If
the therapist made clear boundaries at the beginning of their professional
relationship, this situation could have been completely avoided. The therapist
should have also maintained a professional relationship with this client.
Instead of asking the client for help, she could have reached out to
immigration lawyers or immigration specialists for guidance and advice for
what to do. She should have never crossed that boundary with her client.
During therapy, when the issues arose, the therapist should have
referred the client to a new therapist so she can deal with the issue with her
housekeeper. Not canceling sessions led to the therapist putting her personal
problems over the clients in their own session. In the article is says that the
therapist talked to the client about the situation for almost her whole session.
This is an issue because the client goes to therapy for a reason, and the
therapist is supposed to be there to listen and help. Bringing her personal life
and issues, and asking the client for help, caused harm to the client and could
have done damage to any progress they could have made.
The potential harm was great. By bringing up immigration issues from
her personal life, she could have caused anxiety and panic in her client, who
already has to deal with the issue being the child of immigrants. This could
have sent the client into emotional distress and the feelings of betrayal,
mistrust, and confusion. As mentioned above, this could have also ruined any
progress with the patient since her sessions were being used for the
therapist’s personal problems. Lastly, the therapist could face legal and
professional problems for violating the ethical code to the extent that she had.

Discussion 6 April – 12 April; Ethics in Academia:

When a professor, who is also a psychologist, gives a student a failing
grade, has he/she violated the ethical duty to "do no harm"? Explain.
If a professor, who is also a psychologist, gives a student a failing
grade, they have not violated their ethical duty. Professors, or any type of
educators, must grade fairly for every student, even if they have principle to
“do no harm”.
Being a professor means having to educate and evaluate every student
based on their academic abilities. If a student is not doing well in class, their
grades need to show that and vice versa. Professors also must grade each
student with the same expectations as others, and not with their personal
feelings or opinions. There would only be harm if the professor decides to
grade a student while acting as a psychologist. By this, I mean if the
professor sees a student showing signs of ADHD who struggles with paying
attention fully and gave them lower grades due to that reason.
As mentioned above, there would only be harm if the professor
manipulates the student, causes distress on purpose, or grades on personal
opinions not related to the students’ academic performance. If this were the
case, the professor would be breaking the ethical code as a psychologist, as
well as the ethical code as a professor.