Quote:
Originally Posted by Perna
It's a group thing. The social workers got together and decided what they wanted for ethics and they police them; each individual does pick and choose which ones they want to follow and which they bend or break, just as you and I have our "I would never. . ." and then find ourselves doing whatever it is because the map is not the territory and interpretation and perception can change when you actually experience a situation instead of just read about it.
However, you and I do not let others police us and we may not give ourselves restrictions, probation, or sanction when we violate our personal code, or, perhaps we do which is why so many of us see counselors/therapists in the first place, because we can be too hard on ourselves or listen too closely to others.
You say your first social worker did not harm or harass you, just that she violated the social workers organization's ethics (or maybe you only know the counselors ethics?) but you are not a social worker. I think you take the "letter of the law" a bit too strongly. The ethic codes are not that exact in their interpretation; we're all humans here.
|
As I said in a previous post, I do believe that there are some situations in which for the benefit of the client, that some of the ethics code can be bent or broken. However, you and Lauliza both have said that out of the codes, an individual can pick or choose which ones to follow. Which in my opinion is an absurd way to approach the topic. For instance, we all know that a T should never have a sexual relationship with a client. So, by your definition of following the codes, a T could choose whether or not to follow this specific code.
You said "we are all humans here" and mentioned ideas about interpretation. What if a T "interpreted" the code concerning sexual relationships to not be in violation of the ethics?
It doesn't make any sense.
Again, why have the codes at all, let alone police them, if T's can pick and choose which ones to follow?