When a colleague slips, and when ethics and law collide

Transcript

RyanYou're at a professional conference, leafing through the program, and you spot a workshop led by a colleague from your own clinic. The description makes a small claim about her work that you happen to know isn't accurate.

SoheeNobody's been hurt. But something's off, and you're the one who noticed. So what do you do?

RyanWelcome to EPPP Prep, the podcast. I'm Ryan.

SoheeAnd I'm Sohee. Today is the very first section of the Ethics Code's standards, Resolving Ethical Issues. What to do when a colleague slips, when a formal report is called for, and what happens when the Code collides with a law or with your employer.

RyanLet's start with that conference program. Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations. When psychologists believe there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual.

SoheeWith two conditions attached. An informal resolution has to appear appropriate, and the intervention can't violate any confidentiality rights that may be involved.

RyanSo here: a minor inaccuracy, no substantial harm, nothing confidential in play. You talk with your colleague directly. Privately and respectfully.

SoheeAnd notice what that rules out. Filing with the licensing board before you've said a word to her. Doing nothing, because the Code only governs your own conduct. Or going public. None of those is the first step the Code asks for.

RyanThe General Principles anticipate this, by the way. Principle B says psychologists are concerned about the ethical compliance of their colleagues. Caring how a colleague practices is part of the job.

SoheeNow let's raise the stakes. Standard 1.05, Reporting Ethical Violations. This is where people get tangled, so let's go slowly.

RyanA formal step is called for when two things are both true. First, an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed, or is likely to substantially harm, a person or organization.

SoheeAnd second, the matter isn't appropriate for informal resolution under 1.04, or it wasn't resolved properly that way.

RyanBoth parts. Substantial harm, done or likely, and informal resolution that doesn't fit or didn't work. When both are present, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation.

SoheeAnd what does further action look like? The Code gives examples. Referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities.

RyanStandard 1.05 also has two exceptions worth memorizing. It doesn't apply when an intervention would violate confidentiality rights.

SoheeAnd it doesn't apply when psychologists have been retained to review the work of another psychologist whose professional conduct is in question. If you were hired to do that review, the Code carves that work out of 1.05.

RyanLet's sit with the confidentiality piece for a second, because it appears in both standards. Suppose what you know about a colleague came from your own client, in a session.

SoheeThen raising it with that colleague, or reporting it, could expose your client's confidential information. Both 1.04 and 1.05 are written so they don't apply when the intervention would violate confidentiality rights.

RyanSo when a question builds in a confidentiality barrier, slow down. The informal conversation and the formal report are both conditioned on not violating those rights.

SoheeHere's a way to hold the sequence. Ask about harm first. If there's no substantial harm, and nothing confidential stands in the way, you're in 1.04 territory: talk to the colleague.

RyanIf there is substantial harm, done or likely, ask the second question. Is informal resolution inappropriate, or has it already failed? If yes, you're in 1.05 territory: further action.

SoheePause and think. A psychologist learns that a colleague's custody evaluation contains fabricated data. She raises it with him privately, and he refuses to correct it. What now?

RyanFabricated data in a custody report is likely to cause substantial harm. And the informal attempt failed. Both parts of 1.05 are met, so she takes further action, such as a referral to the licensing board or an ethics committee.

SoheeNow the tempting wrong answers. She already talked to him, so she's done. Only the person who was harmed can complain. Or, warn the public on social media.

RyanNone of those hold up. One private conversation doesn't end the duty when harm is likely and the conversation failed. The Code doesn't limit action to the harmed person. And a public post isn't among the referrals 1.05 describes.

SoheeAnd notice the wording on certainty. Standard 1.04 starts when psychologists believe there may have been a violation. Standard 1.05 speaks of an apparent ethical violation.

RyanRight. Neither standard asks you to prove a violation before you act. You're not the judge. You raise it, or you refer it, and the people whose job it is to decide take it from there.

SoheeThe complaint process has its own guardrails, too. Standards 1.06 through 1.08.

RyanStandard 1.06, Cooperating With Ethics Committees. Psychologists cooperate in ethics investigations and proceedings of the APA, or of any affiliated state psychological association they belong to. And failure to cooperate is itself an ethics violation.

SoheeWith one nuance. Asking to defer the ethics case until related litigation is over does not, by itself, count as noncooperation.

RyanStandard 1.07, Improper Complaints. Psychologists don't file, or encourage, ethics complaints made with reckless disregard for, or willful ignorance of, facts that would disprove the allegation.

SoheeSo the duty to act on real harm isn't a license to fire off careless complaints. You're expected to care about the facts.

RyanAnd Standard 1.08, Unfair Discrimination Against Complainants and Respondents. Psychologists don't deny anyone employment, advancement, admission to a program, tenure, or promotion based solely on their having made an ethics complaint, or being the subject of one.

SoheeSolely is the key word. The standard doesn't stop anyone from acting on the outcome of the proceedings, or on other appropriate information.

RyanAnd one more from this section, Standard 1.01, Misuse of Psychologists' Work. If psychologists learn that their own work is being misused or misrepresented, they take reasonable steps to correct or minimize it.

SoheeOkay. The second half of today. What happens when the Code and the law disagree?

RyanStandard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority. When a psychologist's ethical responsibilities conflict with a law, a regulation, or another governing legal authority, the Code asks for three things.

SoheeClarify the nature of the conflict. Make known your commitment to the Ethics Code. And take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict, consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards.

RyanAnd then a hard stop. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.

SoheeHere's why this matters on the exam. Two very tempting answers are both wrong. Law always takes precedence, so comply quietly. Or, the Ethics Code takes precedence, so refuse.

RyanThe standard says neither. It asks you to speak up, state your commitment, and work toward a resolution. Quietly writing your disagreement in your own notes doesn't do that either.

SoheePause and think, number two. A court orders a psychologist to perform an evaluation that's outside her competence. What does 1.02 ask of her?

RyanShe clarifies the conflict, makes known her commitment to the Code, and takes reasonable steps to resolve it. For example, asking the court to appoint a qualified evaluator.

SoheeStandard 1.03 is the twin. Same three steps, but the conflict is with the demands of an organization you're affiliated with or working for. And the same human rights limit applies.

RyanSo if an agency policy clashes with the Code, the answer pattern is the same. Clarify, commit, take reasonable steps. Not, my employer decides.

SoheeLet's recap. Standard 1.04: try informal resolution first, when it's appropriate and wouldn't violate confidentiality rights.

RyanStandard 1.05: further action when there's substantial harm, done or likely, and informal resolution isn't appropriate or didn't work. That means a referral to an ethics committee, a licensing board, or institutional authorities. It doesn't apply when acting would violate confidentiality rights, or when you were retained to review that psychologist's work.

SoheeStandard 1.06: cooperate with ethics committees, because refusing is itself a violation. Standard 1.07: no complaints made with reckless disregard of the facts. Standard 1.08: don't penalize anyone solely for making or facing a complaint.

RyanAnd 1.02 and 1.03: when a law or an organization conflicts with the Code, clarify, make known your commitment, take reasonable steps, and never use it to justify violating human rights.

SoheeThese questions can feel uncomfortable, because they're about speaking up to people we respect. But look at how humane the Code's approach is. Talk first, and escalate when harm and a failed conversation demand it.

RyanYou can handle these. Look for the two facts, harm and whether informal resolution fits, and the answer usually follows. Thanks for listening to EPPP Prep.

Loading the read-along timings…