Words: 868
This paper presents addresses an ethical code, the limitations of the code for multicultural professional practice. The paper also explains whether the PAP Ethical Principles for Psychologists, and the Code of Conduct are both culturally biased and encapsulated. In addition, the paper presents an explanation as to whether no not there is evidence that the code is culturally sensitive, and the significance of cultural sensitivity, as well as thoughts regarding the implications for ethical professional practice.
In regards to ethical codes, first and foremost, within the progression Of forming decisions concerning ones professional behavior, a psychologist ought to think carefully about the ethical code, as well as relevant laws, and the rules of the psychology board. Furthermore, in the event that the ethical code forms a higher standard of behavior than is mandatory by law, in that case the psychologist is required to sustain the higher ethical standard. Two ethical codes or standards to be discussed according to Fisher (2009) the first Standard is denoted as Resolving Ethical Issues, and the third Standard is Human Relations.
In regards to resolving ethical issues, Standard 1. 02 denotes according to the American Psychological Association (2002) on the condition that the psychologists ethical assignments clash with regulations, as well as any additional presiding legal authority, the psychologist is obligated to affirm their allegiance to the ethical code, as well as take the necessary approach in order to resolve the clash within a conscientious or practical way complaint with the essential standards of human rights. In addition, regardless of the situation, this principle of conduct may never be utilized in order to sanitation the violation of human rights.
The inclusive and diversity standards are for the most part designed to foster knowledge, as well as expertise in order to limit cultural encapsulation. This standard appears to be culturally sensitive because it follows the general principles of Justice (Principle D), as well as the concern of others well-being (Principle E). For example, in practice Principle D allows to understand that impartiality sanctions all individuals to benefit, as well as alike value within the processes, and services implemented by the psychologist.
The psychologists also practices realistic decisions and takes measures to make certain any likely biases, and the psychologist boundaries concerning their ability, as well as the limitations of their knowledge does not indicate or make allowances for biased practices. Principle E according to the American Psychological Association (2002) allows for the perception of respect concerning cultural, personal, as well as role differences, plus those rooted on ones’ weakness, age, race, gender and gender identity, ethnicity, and religion, as well as ones language and ones elation’s of social and economic standing.
This allow psychologists to attempt to remove the influence on their work of preconceptions or prejudices rooted on those influences. In regards to Standard 3 (Human Relations), which is deemed as conflict of interest, this particular ethical code follows the same general principles as the first standard (Resolving Ethical Issues), as well as appearing to be culturally sensitive as well with regards to unfair discrimination which is deemed as code 3. 01, and code 3. 06.
These standards do not appear to be culturally encapsulated because the standard allows for awareness and knowledge. According to Incubi & Bennett (2008) cultural encapsulation is deemed as the lack of awareness or knowledge of other cultural environments, as well as the influence of the environment one ones present view of the world. For example, code 3. 06 allows for the ability of the professional to avoid functioning whenever personal or other interest may impair fairness, and ability in effective implementation.
For example, according to Knapp & Vandenberg (2007) psychologists ought to respect the cultural principles or tankards of behavior Of their clients. Nevertheless, clients from different cue Trial environments may portray objectives and standards of behavior that seem to clash with Western values. If this happens, the psychologist ought to attempt to participate within a deferential discourse in order to be able to simplify the values, as well as understand that a number of cultures may articulate a value in a way that is distinct from how it is articulated within in Western societies.
Nonetheless if there appears to be critical risk to the essential value, for instance a risk to the well-being of children or a femaleness adult, and no suitable resolution, it may be suitable to permit Western perceptions of beneficence in order to briefly outplay respect for autonomy. In regards to limitations, there may appear to be some limitations in relation to responsibility. For example, Corey, Corey & Callahan (2011 ) state that the majority of ethical codes reveal the practitioners’ accountability in order to identify the unique needs of different client populations.
It appears that counselors have been relaxed at identifying a link among inclusive ability, and with ethical behavior. Furthermore, the dependence on the codes unaided does not promise culturally diverse expertise. In addition, as a result different perspectives within any practice, not every member will concur with each of the factors regarding the practices ethical codes. Summary In conclusion, there appears to be ethical codes that are culturally sensitive.