Professional Ethics in Context

Abstract

The complexities of professional ethics are best understood and interpreted within their sociohistorical context. This paper focuses on the experience of 20 rural psychologists from across Canada, a context rife with demographic and practice characteristics that may instigate ethical issues. Employing hermeneutic phenomenology, these qualitative research results are indicative of professional struggles that impacted the participants' experience of professional ethics and raised key questions about policy and practise. Concerns regarding competition highlight potential professional vulnerability, beget the idea of fostering general psychological practice, and question the role of professional bodies in addressing rural shortages. Dependency on government funding models and decisions highlights the benefits and medical cost-offset effect of psychological services' role in funded medical care. The controversial prescriptive authority debate for psychologists raises myriad concerns that are particularly salient to rural practitioners. These include changes to training and practice, with risks of psychopharmacology gaining prominence over behavioural health interventions. National inconsistencies in level of registration add to the growing shortage of practitioners. Finally, the results illuminate the need for advocacy to move beyond the literature and into public policy to increase public awareness, decrease the stigma of mental illness, and develop rural Canadian psychology. Although limited to this study, these results allowed for a fuller and more robust understanding of rural practice in consideration of professional ethics, which may inform policy, science, or ethical clinical practice.

How do clinical psychologists make ethical decisions? A systematic review of empirical research

“…For example, one study included participants from a variety of professional groups, including social work, nursing and medicine, as well as psychology. 15 Of the 20 articles which were reviewed in full, a further two were screened out due to not fitting with the inclusion criteria related to ethical decision-making (for example, an exploration of participants’ experiences of ethical challenges within their social context), 16 a further article was screened out as only the title and abstract were available in English, and one final article was screened out due to the body of the text clarifying that this was not empirical research. Therefore, based on the inclusion criteria outlined in Table 2, 13 of the originally identified pool of articles were found to be suitable for this systematic review.…”