Professional Ethics vs Guild Ethics

[Mary S]

I recently came across the article The Code Not Taken: The Path From Guild Ethics to Torture and Our Continuing Choices (https://kspope.com/PsychologyEthics.php), discussing ethics in psychology. Its main focus is the scandal about how APA policies supported “enhanced interrogation” policies at Guantanamo, etc., but it also speaks to more general ethical concerns for psychologists. A quote from the abstract:

“The controversy … asks whether our lives and organizations reflect professional ethics or guild ethics. Professional ethics protect the public against abuse of professional power, expertise, and practice, and hold members accountable to values beyond self-interest. Guild ethics place members' interests above public interest, edge away from accountability, and tend to masquerade as professional ethics. Psychology's path to involvement in torture began before 9/11 and the "war on terror" with a move from professional ethics to guild ethics. In sharp contrast to its previous codes, APA's 1992 ethics code reflected guild ethics, as did the subsequent 2002 code (APA, 2002). Guild ethics are reflected in the questionable nature of APA's, 2006, 2007a, 2008a, and 2015 policies on interrogation and torture. This article examines tactics used to maintain the façade of professional ethics despite over a decade of publicized reports…of documentary evidence of psychology's organizational involvement in what came to be called "enhanced interrogations." It asks if we use versions of these tactics in our individual lives. If a credible identity, integrity, and professional ethics are not reflected in our individual lives, it is unlikely they will thrive in our profession and organizations.”

I had a sense of irony in reading this, for two reasons. First, when I read (in around 2006) a book on ethics co-written by Kenneth Pope (I think it was the second edition of the book), my impression* was that it was more like what Pope here describes as “guild ethics” than what he describes as “professional ethics”.  Second, because therapists I tried before 1992 engaged in practices (such as not answering questions about what they were doing and why) that I consider examples of “guild” rather than “professional” ethics.

In a section called, “Choosing Ethical Awareness,” Pope writes,

“The torture controversy and the choices that led up to it provide a grim inventory of guild ethics, willful ignorance, denial, and discrediting critics. If we call up the courage to take an honest look, do we see those tactics in our own lives? Have we stopped listening to colleagues of certain disciplines, theoretical orientations, or political views because what, after all, do they know? Do we jump to discount, discredit, silence, or avoid certain kinds of criticism and words—both spoken and written—that call our beliefs, approaches, and actions into question? Do we have a safe stock of go-to consultants we count on to give us the answers we want to hear? Do we live our professional lives in the safety of "gated communities" of like-minded colleagues who read the same journals, see things as we do, and aim criticism at outsiders, never at those within the community?

If we see at least some forms of some of these tendencies in ourselves, as I'm pretty sure most of us will, and find they no longer fit who we want to be, what can we do? We can start to search out and listen to those who disagree sharply with us and are willing to challenge and critique our ethical assumptions, beliefs, choices, and actions. Luckily—or not—such folk are remarkably easy to find. We can read more widely, opening books and articles that challenge our outlook, our decision-making, and how we like to do things.”

Sadly, he didn’t include “listen to our clients.”

* Things I remember most strikingly from the book that gave this impression of “guild ethics” are connected with informed consent. First, informed consent seemed to be presented as something that only concerned a written document, not including the notion of informed consent as an ongoing process, where therapists explain why they propose to do something and ask if the client consents before proceeding. Second, the only example of an “informed consent document” they gave in the book was not an informed consent form for therapy, but for filing a complaint. Third, one of their “scenarios for thought and discussion” said (paraphrased from my memory) something like, “You have a new client who has recently lost his sight in an accident and is seeking therapy to help him adjust to this new circumstance. The informed consent form is not available in Braille. What would you do?” I found this astonishingly poorly thought out, since someone who recently lost his sight in an accident would not yet be able to read Braille!

[here today]

Professional vs. Guild ethics, a very interesting distinction.

On 7/4/2017 at 8:27 PM, Mary S said:

Professional ethics protect the public against abuse of professional power, expertise, and practice, and hold members accountable to values beyond self-interest. Guild ethics place members' interests above public interest, edge away from accountability, and tend to masquerade as professional ethics.

It's something good to be aware of.  Thanks, Mary

[disequilibrium1]

Ethics discussions I've read seem concerned with defending  against lawsuits rather than avoiding harming clients.

[here today]

Yes, and the ethics guidelines in my state about competency, among other things, seem more about protecting the therapist, too.  I've wondered if another way to approach the problem might be through the state legislature.  But, as of now, I'm the only one I know about in my state who might share my view.  And the "guild" most certainly has a large lobby.

[disequilibrium1]

They skim the subject of harm without bothering to define all but the most egregious examples.

[Mary S]

My impression is that one of the areas in which therapists are required to have "continuing education credits" is called "Ethics and Risk Management" -- and "risk management" is ambiguous: It could refer to "managing" risk of harm to the client, or "managing" legal risk for the therapist.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Mary S
correct formatting

[AdamP]

On 7/4/2017 at 5:27 PM, Mary S said:

First, informed consent seemed to be presented as something that only concerned a written document, not including the notion of informed consent as an ongoing process, where therapists explain why they propose to do something and ask if the client consents before proceeding. 

That's a good point.  Therapists get away with cursory consent up front and then after that nothing, just expect the client to plow forward blindly.

[disequilibrium1]

They certainly fail to inform clients how infantilizing, enfeebling, pathologizing or self-absorbing therapy can be. Nor do they explain the advantages of this. I wonder if they know this themselves.

[Eve B]

I think these therapists are aware enough during their training, and different therapists will use this knowledge of client vulnerability  in different ways to further serve their own motivations or ambitions.  If they really want to protect their clients, these ethics codes need to include a standardized consent form indicating clear details of the possible risks inherent in the therapy process and what the therapist will be legally responsible for so that there won't be any unfair expectations in the beginning by either side.

[Bacchus]

On 7/4/2017 at 7:27 PM, Mary S said:

I found this astonishingly poorly thought out, since someone who recently lost his sight in an accident would not yet be able to read Braille!

Mary, this is exactly the nuanced thinking and recognition that is missing from the therapy model! It's such a great example that highlights the unexamined assumptions that many therapists make... presuming to know where the clients is at without any level of deeper thought.