Sablan, Mylene M.

AB Psychology 3C

ETHICAL CASES

(Individual Analysis)

CASE #1:

Client has been in therapy with Therapist H weekly for six years and has already resolved her
presenting issues. Her emotional status has not changed in approximately four years except she has
developed a growing attachment to therapist. H has not strongly recommended termination, rather, his
attitude is, “If the client thinks she needs to see me, then she does.”

1. What makes the case unethical?

The thing that makes the case unethical was the emotional attachment that the client has
developed towards her therapist and the continuum of the therapy even though the therapist had
known that the client was emotionally attached to him.

1.2 A brief explanation of the reasons for certain actions done by the main players in each case

Client has developed an emotional attachment to her therapist probably because of the care her
therapist has given her. The therapist did not recommend termination because he thinks that the client
being able to see him might help her resolve her presenting issues.

1.3 What could have been done to minimize or avoid the violation (if any) from happening?

The therapist should immediately terminate the client and referred her to other therapist
immediately after he had realized that the client has developed an emotional attachment towards him.

2. Citation of specific ethical principle or code of ethics

VIII. THERAPY – D. RELATIONSHIPS

3. We maintain a professional relationship with our clients, avoiding emotional involvement that would
be detrimental for the client’s well-being. (PAP Code of Ethics)

VIII. THERAPY – J. TERMINATION

1. We terminate therapy when we are quite sure that our client no longer needs the therapy, is not likely
to benefit from therapy, or would be harmed by continued therapy. (PAP Code of Ethics)
CASE #2:

Mr. Austin hired Dr. Dale in a child custody case in the hope of taking custody of his two sons,
aged 9 and 11, from his ex-wife, Mrs. Romero, who held custody. Dr. Dale evaluated Mr. Austin, his
current wife and the two children. In court, Dr. Dale testified that Mr. Austin and his wife would be
better parents and should have custody of the children and Mrs. Romero should have limited visitation
rights. He said the boys preferred their father over their mother. Dr. Dale never evaluated Mrs. Romero
or her current husband, rather, all such information was gained secondhand.