Dr. Vaji's Ethical Dilemmas
This is an ethical dilemma because Dr. Vaji is unsure if the students report should be implemented into Leo’s report. The students report might persuade Dr. Vaji to flaw his reports even if it unknowingly. Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence frames the nature of this dilemma it states that the psychologist will do good, treat people humanely and providing opinions and resolutions based on substantiate findings (Fisher, 2013, p. 25). The principle of justice also helps frame the ethical situation, in (Fisher, 2013 p. 343) it states that psychologists need to use reasonable judgment and take care to avoid potential biases, competence and limitations to avoid unjust practices. According to the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (1999) guideline 465.2, Dr. Vaji is responsible for Leo. 6.Who are the stakeholders and how will they be affected by how Dr. Vaji resolves this dilemma?
The stakeholders in this case is Leo, Dr. Vaji, the mid-size university, …show more content…
companies and businesses who are the recipients of the externship students, and the students at the university. Leo will be affected because his report may be flawed. Dr. Vaji is a stakeholder because he has to decide what to do about the ethical dilemma. Whatever the outcome is of Leo’s situation affects prospective student perception about the university. Companies and businesses who are the recipients of the externship students are affected because there might be a stigma associated with the students depending on how this is resolved. Students at the university will be impacted because they may have a hard time find internships depending on Dr. Vaji actions.
7. What additional information might Dr. Vaji collect to provide him with a more accurate picture of Leo’s multicultural attitudes and professional skills? What are the reasons for and against contacting Leo’s supervisor for more information? Should he request that Leo’s sessions with clients be electronically recorded or observed?
Dr. Vaji can collect some of Leo’s previous evaluations to see his work habits and experiences. Some reasons to contact Leo’s supervisor is to gather more information about Leo’s performance. In fact, he doesn’t even have to tell the supervisor why he called. He could just ask him for some feedback on the student. One reason not to contact Leo’s supervisor is because it could persuade Leo’s supervisor to think negatively about Leo. Dr. Vaji is trying to collect information and has not came up with a verdict yet therefore he doesn’t want Leo’s supervisor to think negatively about him. Recording Leo’s sessions is an ideal way to monitor Leo’s cultural competence. According to the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (1999), licensee shall also ensure that their supervisees have legal authority to provide psychological services in adherence to Board rules. The board rules also include being multicultural competent. 8. Is Dr. Vaji in a potentially unethical multiple relationship as both Leo’s externship supervisor and his teacher in the Health Disparate class? Why or why not?
Yes, Dr. Vaji is in a potentially unethical multiple relationship. The information that he collects as Leo’s supervisor could impact the way he treats Leo as a student in his class. He is in two relationships that could contradict the other.
9.To what extent, if any, should Dr. Vaji consider Leo’s own ethnicity in his deliberations? Would the dilemma be addressed differently if Leo self-identified as non-Hispanic white, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic black?
I do not think that ethnicity should be considered in this dilemma. I think the dilemma would be addressed the same regardless of Leo’s race. If anything, Leo’s background should be considered. In fact, the ethical contract that Leo should have signed is something that should be brought to the meeting to remind Leo of what he agreed to before he started the program.
10. Once the dilemma is resolved, should Dr. Vaji have a follow-up meeting with the students who complained?
Once the dilemma is made Dr. Vaji should not have a follow up meeting with the students who complained. There is no need, he could also be breaking confidentiality. The students could feel chastise and this could prevent further reporting.
11.How are APA Ethical Standards 1.08, 3.04, 3.05, 3.09, 7.04, 7.05, and 7.06 and the Hot Topics “Ethical Supervision of Trainees” (Chapter 10) and “Multicultural Ethical Competence” (Chapter 5) relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply?
Standard 1.08 applies because there is a possibility Leo could be discriminated against by his supervisor.
Standard 3.04 Avoiding Harm, applies because Dr. Vaji has to ensure that he taking the correct steps not to harm his students. At the very least psychologists should never do harm. 3.05 Multiple Relationships applies here because Dr. Vaji is in two relationships with Leo. 3.09 is relevant because Dr. Vaji could consult with another professional to help him with his ethical dilemma. Students disclosed information about another student information therefore 7.04 is relevant. 7.05 does not apply. However, 7.06 Assessing Student and Supervisee Performance, in subsection does apply Dr. Vaji has an obligation to evaluate Leo on relevant information. Leo should be multi-cultural which includes the hot topic of “Multicultural Ethical Competence”. Ethical supervision on trainees is important and relevant because Leo is a trainee and his supervisor needs to ensure that he is acting
ethically.
12.What are Dr. Vaji’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma? Which alternatives best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and enforceable standards, legal standards, and obligations to stakeholders? Can you identify the ethical theory (discussed in Chapter 3) guiding your decision?
Dr. Vaji could consult with another professional (3.09). He could also resign from his role as Leo’s teacher. An alternative that could be used is the ethical theory of Deontology. Ethical decisions cannot be influence by special circumstances or relationships (Fisher, 2013, p. 35).
13.What steps should Dr. Vaji take to implement his decision and monitor its effect?
I think that speaking to another professional is the best option for Dr. Vaji at the moment. To implement his decision and monitor its effects he could consult with the supervisor and ask him or her to submit weekly reports to closely monitor Leo.
The stakeholders in this case is Leo, Dr. Vaji, the mid-size university, …show more content…
companies and businesses who are the recipients of the externship students, and the students at the university. Leo will be affected because his report may be flawed. Dr. Vaji is a stakeholder because he has to decide what to do about the ethical dilemma. Whatever the outcome is of Leo’s situation affects prospective student perception about the university. Companies and businesses who are the recipients of the externship students are affected because there might be a stigma associated with the students depending on how this is resolved. Students at the university will be impacted because they may have a hard time find internships depending on Dr. Vaji actions.
7. What additional information might Dr. Vaji collect to provide him with a more accurate picture of Leo’s multicultural attitudes and professional skills? What are the reasons for and against contacting Leo’s supervisor for more information? Should he request that Leo’s sessions with clients be electronically recorded or observed?
Dr. Vaji can collect some of Leo’s previous evaluations to see his work habits and experiences. Some reasons to contact Leo’s supervisor is to gather more information about Leo’s performance. In fact, he doesn’t even have to tell the supervisor why he called. He could just ask him for some feedback on the student. One reason not to contact Leo’s supervisor is because it could persuade Leo’s supervisor to think negatively about Leo. Dr. Vaji is trying to collect information and has not came up with a verdict yet therefore he doesn’t want Leo’s supervisor to think negatively about him. Recording Leo’s sessions is an ideal way to monitor Leo’s cultural competence. According to the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (1999), licensee shall also ensure that their supervisees have legal authority to provide psychological services in adherence to Board rules. The board rules also include being multicultural competent. 8. Is Dr. Vaji in a potentially unethical multiple relationship as both Leo’s externship supervisor and his teacher in the Health Disparate class? Why or why not?
Yes, Dr. Vaji is in a potentially unethical multiple relationship. The information that he collects as Leo’s supervisor could impact the way he treats Leo as a student in his class. He is in two relationships that could contradict the other.
9.To what extent, if any, should Dr. Vaji consider Leo’s own ethnicity in his deliberations? Would the dilemma be addressed differently if Leo self-identified as non-Hispanic white, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic black?
I do not think that ethnicity should be considered in this dilemma. I think the dilemma would be addressed the same regardless of Leo’s race. If anything, Leo’s background should be considered. In fact, the ethical contract that Leo should have signed is something that should be brought to the meeting to remind Leo of what he agreed to before he started the program.
10. Once the dilemma is resolved, should Dr. Vaji have a follow-up meeting with the students who complained?
Once the dilemma is made Dr. Vaji should not have a follow up meeting with the students who complained. There is no need, he could also be breaking confidentiality. The students could feel chastise and this could prevent further reporting.
11.How are APA Ethical Standards 1.08, 3.04, 3.05, 3.09, 7.04, 7.05, and 7.06 and the Hot Topics “Ethical Supervision of Trainees” (Chapter 10) and “Multicultural Ethical Competence” (Chapter 5) relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply?
Standard 1.08 applies because there is a possibility Leo could be discriminated against by his supervisor.
Standard 3.04 Avoiding Harm, applies because Dr. Vaji has to ensure that he taking the correct steps not to harm his students. At the very least psychologists should never do harm. 3.05 Multiple Relationships applies here because Dr. Vaji is in two relationships with Leo. 3.09 is relevant because Dr. Vaji could consult with another professional to help him with his ethical dilemma. Students disclosed information about another student information therefore 7.04 is relevant. 7.05 does not apply. However, 7.06 Assessing Student and Supervisee Performance, in subsection does apply Dr. Vaji has an obligation to evaluate Leo on relevant information. Leo should be multi-cultural which includes the hot topic of “Multicultural Ethical Competence”. Ethical supervision on trainees is important and relevant because Leo is a trainee and his supervisor needs to ensure that he is acting
ethically.
12.What are Dr. Vaji’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma? Which alternatives best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and enforceable standards, legal standards, and obligations to stakeholders? Can you identify the ethical theory (discussed in Chapter 3) guiding your decision?
Dr. Vaji could consult with another professional (3.09). He could also resign from his role as Leo’s teacher. An alternative that could be used is the ethical theory of Deontology. Ethical decisions cannot be influence by special circumstances or relationships (Fisher, 2013, p. 35).
13.What steps should Dr. Vaji take to implement his decision and monitor its effect?
I think that speaking to another professional is the best option for Dr. Vaji at the moment. To implement his decision and monitor its effects he could consult with the supervisor and ask him or her to submit weekly reports to closely monitor Leo.