Ethical Decision-Making Process PDF

Ethical DecisionMaking Process OBJECTIVES 01 02 03 04 Explain the decisionmaking process as a value-laden, but rational, process. Cite the literature on decision-making models. Summarize several models of ethical decision making. Apply two decisionmaking models—one based on an integration of current...

Ethical DecisionMaking Process OBJECTIVES 01 02 03 04 Explain the decisionmaking process as a value-laden, but rational, process. Cite the literature on decision-making models. Summarize several models of ethical decision making. Apply two decisionmaking models—one based on an integration of current theory and practice, and the other based on a purely theoretical model. ETHICAL JUDGMENT Ethics codes are specific and reactive in nature and yet general enough to be applied across a wide range of practice settings. However, ethics codes may not provide sufficient guidance to resolve a dilemma. Counselors must recognize underlying ethical principles and conflicts among competing interests and apply appropriate decisionmaking skills to resolve a dilemma. COTTONE’S (2012) CLASSIFICATION OF ETHICAL INTELLECTUAL MOVEMENTS Cottone, R. R. (2012). Ethical decision making in mental health contexts: Representative models and an organizational framework. In S. J. Knapp, M. C. Gottlieb, M. M. Handelsman, & L. D. VandeCreek (Eds.), APA handbook of ethics in psychology: Vol. 1. Moral foundations and common themes (pp. 99–121). American Psychological Association. Principle Ethics. This is the wellestablished historical movement that is tied most closely to established codes of ethics and decision-making practices. The focus is on “What shall I do?” Virtue Ethics. This was a movement that recognized knowing “what to do” is not always enough. It is about the character of the decision maker. It is about “What shall I be?” COTTONE’S (2012) ETHICAL MOVEMENTS ž A REVIEW OF ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING MODELS: PRINCIPLE ETHICS FIRST ž ž ž THEORETICALLY OR PHILOSOPHICALLY BASED MODES OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING Hare (1991) argued that absolute thinking and utilitarian thinking were both involved in ethical decision-making. Rest (1984) produced a work that applied ethics of psychology and drew heavily on theories of moral development (Kohlberg). Gutheil et al. (1991) published a text on decision making in psychiatry and law. They concluded that decision making must account for some level of uncertainty (probability). THEORETICALLY OR PHILOSOPHICALLY BASED MODES OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING (Contd.) Hill et al. (1995) proposed a model for ethical decision making based on a theory of feminism. Betan (1997) proposed a hermeneutic perspective of ethical decision making. Cottone (2001, 2004) proposed an ethical decisionmaking approach based on social constructivism. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ON PHILOSOPHICALLY OR THEORETICALLY GROUNDED MODELS Two empirical studies in the published literature had direct theoretical linkage. Cottone, Tarvydas, and House (1994) results support a conclusion of social influence over ethical choice. Hinkeldey and Spokane (1985) tested Janis and Mann’s (1977) theory of decision making under stress. Hinkeldey and Spokane concluded that decision-making was affected negatively by pressure but that participants relied little on legal guidelines in making responses to ethical conflict dilemmas. PRACTICE-BASED MODELS OF ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING ž ž 10 WILLINGNESS OR RESOLUTENESS AS A FACTOR IN DECISION MAKING Even well-educated counselors who know principles and standards may not choose to be ethical. Research has shown that there is a personal factor that is related to ethical choice—willingness to act ethically. Personal factors may blind someone when faced with an ethical dilemma. An example, you friend is accused of unethical conduct; do you act to address the conduct at the expense of the friendship. Many people may not. That’s a blind spot that affects “willingness.” TARVYDAS’ INTEGRATIVE DECISION-MAKING MODEL OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR The Tarvydas’ Integrative Decision-Making Model of Ethical Behavior incorporates the most prominent principles and virtue aspects (characteristics of the counselor) of several decision-making approaches and introduces some relational (she calls it contextual) consideration into the process. The Tarvydas model emphasizes the interaction between the principle and virtue elements, requires a reflective attitude, considers actual production of ethical behavior within a specified context (relationships), and emphasizes the importance of the environment. The Tarvydas model is based on the seminal works of Rest (1984) and Kitchener (1984) as well as a model of ethical practice by Tarvydas and Cottone (1991). CONCEPTUAL ORIGINS Rest (1984) provided the model with its core understanding of ethical decision-making as a psychological process that involves distinct cognitive-affective elements. Kitchener (1984) provided other core elements including Hare’s (1981) distinction between the intuitive and critical-evaluative levels of ethical decision-making. CONCEPTUAL ORIGINS (Contd.) ž CONTEXTUAL (RELATIONAL) FORCES ž In addition to the specific elements of the Tarvydas Integrative Model, four underlying themes or attitudes are necessary for the professional counselor. THEMES AND ATTITUDES Maintaining a stance of reflection concerning the personal issues, values, and decision-making skills of the decision maker and all other involved parties. Addressing the balance among various issues, people, and perspectives within the process. Maintaining an appropriate level of attention to the context of the situation in question, allowing awareness of the counselor-client, treatment team, organizational, and societal implications of the ethical elements. Seeking to collaborate with all rightful parties to the decision, but most especially the client. STAGES AND COMPONENTS ž STAGES AND COMPONENTS (Contd.) ž MOST MODELS END AT TARVYDAS’ STAGE 2. ž BLIND SPOTS ž ž STAGES AND COMPONENTS (Contd.) ž EXAMPLE DECISIONS. ž ž STAGES AND COMPONENTS (Contd.) ž UNIQUE ASPECTS OF THE TARVYDAS MODEL It is integrative of psychological and social processes. It is integrative of intuitive and rational processes. It involves a degree of reflection after an initial formulation is made, requiring reassessment considering additional personal factors. It considers the professional context in which decision making is carried out. COTTONE’S CONSTRUCTIVISM MODEL OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING ž ž COTTONE’S CONSTRUCTIVISM MODEL OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING (Contd.) This model provides a distinct view of the decision-making process—it is based purely on a relational view of how humans understand. The process is fully interactive (interpersonal), not psychological (internal to the individual). Another rationale for the social constructivist model is that it may lead to empirical testing of social versus psychologically based ethical decision-making models. The third rationale is its appeal to practitioners as an alternative and unique perspective for framing ethical decisions. APPLYING SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM TO ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING What social constructivism means to decision-making is that decisions can no longer be viewed as occurring internally— they are taken (literally) out-of-the-head. All human activity, and all to which language is applied, is a reflection of what has been shared previously in the community. Understanding is always a reflection of a “community of understanding.” Maturana, H. R. (1978). Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In G. A. Miller & E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Psychology and biology of language and thought (pp. 27–63). Academic Press. This model places the ethical decision out in the open—in the interaction between individuals as they operate in what Maturana (1978) identified as the “consensual domain”. APPLYING SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM TO ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING (Contd.) ž ž RELIGION AS AN EXAMPLE: COTTONE (2010) TOWARD A POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION ž APPLYING SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM TO ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING (Contd.) ž ž ž ž APPLYING SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM TO ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING (Contd.) ž ž ž NEGOTIATING, CONSENSUALIZING, AND ARBITRATING Social Constructivism ethical decision-making is a process of negotiating (when necessary), consensualizing, and arbitrating (when necessary) that occurs in the relationships involved in a dilemma. Negotiating is the process of discussing and debating an issue wherein at least two individuals indicate some degree of disagreement. Consensualizing is a process wherein at least two individuals act in agreement and in coordination on an issue. Arbitrating is a process whereby negotiators seek the judgment of consensually accepted individuals who are approved arbiters. RESPONSE TO A CHALLENGE ž ž THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM PROCESS OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING ž ž ž ž ž THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM PROCESS OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING (Contd.) If a disagreement persists through attempts to establish a viable consensus, then one must enter negotiation with involved parties. “The truth” may be a matter of dispute. When there is a difference of opinion about an act—a conflict of consensualities—arbitration may be the only answer. Engage arbitration when negotiation fails, but first, a process of interactive reflection is recommended. Before entering arbitration, it is recommended that the counselor should engage in a period of interactive reflection (reappraisal of actions in context and in consultation). By seeking the counsel of others, alternatives may be defined that will allow renegotiation or consensualizing. Or an agreement may be made to reconcile differences between non-agreeing parties. HOW THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM MODEL INTERFACES WITH MULTICULTURALISM ž ž ž SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN CONTEXT ž ž ž SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM AND MULTICULTURALISM ž