Hiding Behind Code Of Ethics?

The point of my post was to say that the Code is there to protect patients. If the therapist uses a code to harm patients and benefit themselves, then they are misusing it and it's a red flag. Yes, anyone can twist words, but knowing it's there to protect US, can alert us to when it's being misused.

Ethical codes were put in place with the intent to protect clients, and guide the therapists' behaviors. Again, they are governed by the principles of beneficence (do good) and nonmaleficence (do no harm). If a patient thinks that the therapist is harming them OR not working in their best interest, then it might be a red flag.

It might very well be that some therapists use their respective codes of ethics to protect themselves and other therapists (which isn't bad in of itself - just think of the government, citizens, and the US constitution). Obviously there are provisions that protect the therapist (e.g., therapist may terminate if threatened by client or client's family), and prevent against *frivolous* lawsuits/complaints.

That being said, such as with any document of rules and any set of people, therapists may use it to justify their questionable behavior (same as the AMA code - American Medical Association).

I understood what you meant. I disagree about the true purpose. I do agree it is what they say about the purpose of their code.

This is true. In my experience, clients are not protected at all.

I think all regulations tend to be put into place after someone has gotten hurt, sued or both. We can say the same about a lot of public safety laws as well. Even if the original underlying purpose isn't completely altruistic, I think there are many Ts that are sincere in their use of them for their clients as well as themselves.

My T has never mentioned a code of ethics; he once said that a particular course of action would not have been ethical, but that's as close as he has got as far as I can remember. He is bound by the rules of the Govt board of Health and Safety, which is the licensing body for all health care professionals, and maybe he is also a member of some psychodynamic organisation with a code of ethics, but I am not particularly interested in what those rules say. I trust him to do his job and act in my best interest, which is what matters.

I agree, ethical codes protect therapists first. "Do no harm" can take on completely different forms. There is no universal quality of nonmaleficence. What helps one person can harm another, even if the behaviour was based on a concept of nonmaleficence.

As societies become larger and more mobile, healing professionals start to become more distant from their clients/patients, standardisation and regulations starts to occur, and they start to compete for territory with other healing professions. Then we end up with ethical codes...