By 
Comparison of codes of ethics for professional counselors
Summary
This article analyzes the differences between the codes of ethics presented by three professional counseling organizations; The American Counseling Association, the American Association of Christian Counselors, and the American Association of Pastoral Counselors. The article examines the differences in organization membership, the resulting differences in the organizations code of ethics, and discusses a missing element in each code.
General observations on the three Codes
The codes discussed below were published by the American Counseling Association (ACA, 2005), the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC, 2004), and the American Association of Pastoral Counselors (AAPC, 1993).
The ACA Code of Ethics is reviewed every 10 years and was last revised in 2005. The code has eight sections: the counseling relationship, confidentiality, professional responsibility, relationships with other professionals, evaluations, supervision, and training, research and resolution of ethical issues. counseling today summarized recent changes to the Code to include: increased emphasis on multiculturalism; allow dual relationships if it includes potentially beneficial interactions; increased acceptable use of technology in research, record-keeping, and counseling; more detailed language on counselor disability and client transfer; and finally, changes in various terms, but not in meaning as an example, “tests” are now called “assessments”. (Highlights of the ACA Code of Ethics, 2005)
The AACC code was finalized in 2004 after 10 years and 4 provisional codes. This is the longest of the three codes. The main sections of the Code are: Applicability of the Code, Introduction and Mission Statement, Basic Biblical Principles, Ethical Standards, and Rules of Procedure. The ethical standards section is divided among the different categories of members. The AACC Code includes the most extensive section on dispute resolution and complaint handling.
The AAPC is the shortest of the three codes. The code was last revised in 1993 at which time the procedure section was separated from the Code of Ethics (Beck, 1997). The Code has seven sections: prologue, professional practices, relations with clients, confidentiality, relations with the supervisee, student and employee, interprofessional relations and advertising.
Background of the organizations
The ACA, AACC, and AAPC, as organizations, have different charters and membership.
The ACA is an organization geared toward serving licensed professional counselors of all backgrounds and worldviews. For example, a member might have a worldview based on atheism, Buddhism, Islam, or Christianity. The ACA cannot assume any similar beliefs or ethical backgrounds among its members.
AACC membership has a broad aspect in the definition of counselor and a narrow aspect in that the members are Christian. The AACC Code of Ethics includes sections applicable to licensed professional counselors, pastoral counselors, and lay helpers.
The AAPC has the narrowest membership. Full membership in AAPC requires the member to have an M. Div and be ordained by a denominational organization. The denominational organization does not have to be a Christian denomination. The AAPC Code in the Foreword section specifically states that councilors are also bound by their domains’ code of ethics.
Comparison of ethical descriptors
Comparing two Christian codes from the American Association of Pastoral Counselors and the Christian Association for Psychological Studies with two secular codes from the American Counseling Association and the American Psychological Association, Beck uses the 23 key ethical descriptors. The descriptors come from the Williams index of ethical code terminology that was identified by Austin, Moline, and Williams (1990) as being contained in the six codes they examined (Beck, 1997). Table 1 lists the 23 descriptors, additional terms identified, and cross-references to the respective code sections for each descriptor or term.
The ACA Code contains the 23 ethical descriptions discussed by Beck and most of the additional terms. The only section that the ACA Code does not include are the special attention sections included in the AACA Code related to substance abuse, abortion, divorce, sexual relationships with clients, and homosexual conduct.
The AACC Code covers all descriptors except denial of treatment, fraud, techniques and like the AAPC Code does not include additional descriptors related to the use of technology, consultation and forensic evaluation.
The AAPC Code includes the minimum descriptors for all three codes. Does not include descriptors related to measurement tests, protection, peer reports, multicultural clients, groups, specific care situations, technology, consultation, or forensic evaluations.
Although the codes may include sections related to each descriptor, it does not follow that each Code provides for similar treatment of the descriptors. Two examples of descriptors that are handled differently are suicide and dual relationships.
Section A.9 of the ACA Code deals with suicide. This section leaves the decision whether or not to support assisted suicide up to the counselor and states that the counselor should strive to “allow clients to exercise as much self-determination as possible.” The AACC Code discusses suicide in section E1-127. The AACC Code states that counselors must refuse to “condone or advocate active forms of euthanasia and assisted suicide.” The AAPC Code does not address this issue. A counselor who is a member of the ACA and AACC would be subject to conflicting codes of ethics in the area related to the counselor’s actions with respect to assisted suicide.
The differences related to dual relationships are not as clear cut as in suicide, but the language of the three codes seems to present a spectrum of advice about dual relationships.
The ACA Code, in 2005, was amended to lessen the restriction on dual relationships. Section A.5.d of the ACA Code now allows for a dual relationship if the relationship is beneficial to the counseling relationship. The wording of the ACA seems to indicate an acceptance of dual relationships. ES sections 1-140 to 1-146 of the AACC Code state that some dual relationships are unethical. The AACC Code allows for one exception, but states that it is imperative that the counselor document the dual relationship and clearly document the rationale for the relationship in the client’s notes. The language used in the AACC Code appears to be less supportive of dual relationships than the ACA Code. The AAPC Code appears to be the most restrictive, stating in Principle III E. “We avoid dual relationships with clients…which could impair our professional judgment.” The AAPC Code does not recognize a positive dual relationship or provide guidance on how to determine or manage a positive dual relationship.
Summary
Hathaway (2001) poses the question what basis is provided to support the code of ethics? She goes on to observe that Christian and secular professional codes are similar on many significant points. He reasons that this is due to the fact that all mental health professionals are trained in the same or similar training programs, work in the same environment, and work toward the same goals. Freeman, Engels, and Altekruse (2004) pose a similar question when they state that “those who practice… behavioral science regularly make moral/ethical judgments about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of particular actions, but what is the basis for such a concept?” “How are they justified? The only element missing from all three models is the basis for ethical decision making. This leaves the practitioner without a supporting frame of reference in situations that fit exactly the norm or where sections of various codes conflict, as noted above. The Tarasoff case referenced by Freeman et al. (2004) is a good example of this problem. All three codes require the counselor to maintain the confidentiality of information related to the counselee and But how does the counselor know when a competing code element, like do no harm, would outweigh another section without a solid understanding of the code? idea of the theoretical underpinnings of the code and/or a defined decision-making model?
Since the decision-making model is left up to the authors of the codes, these codes will be subject to continual redrafting to meet changing examples of ethical issues that arise.
References
American Association of Christian Counselors. (2004). AACC Code of Ethics. Alexandria, Virginia
American Association of Pastoral Counselors. (1993). Ethical code. Fairfax, Va.
American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, Virginia
Austin, KM, Moline, ME, & Williams, GT (1990). Facing malpractice: legal and ethical dilemmas in psychotherapy. Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Beck, J. (1997). Christian codes, are they better? Ethics of Christian Counseling (pp. 313-325). Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press.
Freeman, S., Engels, D., and Altekruse, M. (April 2004). Foundation of ethical standards and codes: the role of moral philosophy and theory in ethics. Counseling and Values, 48;163-174.
Hathaway, W. (2001). Common Sense Professional Ethics: A Christian Appraisal. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29224-233.
Highlights of the ACA Code of Ethics. (2005, October). counseling today, 1.16-17.63.