The ethical issues that can be identified in the case of Peter regard the impact that Peter’s smoking habit is having on the clients and its effect on the center’s goals and purpose. Peter is obligated by the policies to ensure that he does not smoke within 50 feet of the institution. Clients witnessing Peter smoke potentially compromises the professional relationship between him and clients and puts the professionalism of the institution at a questionable position. The ethical dilemma here is centered around how Peter’s smoking behind the building compromises his counselor-patient relationship. Often the ideal relationship should be patient-centered. Theoretical approaches that use self-disclosure as a treatment technique argue that the therapist should disclose information about himself only when it has potential help the client. Peter’s smoking habit does not do this. Further, the habit changes his patient’s perspective about Peter and he becomes an incredible authority. It justifies the reason why his patient complains about Peter discussing with him smoking cessation. The client feels that his therapist is not genuine nor understanding.
As Peter’s colleague, I would talk to Peter and inform him of the complaint. Further, I would encourage him to attend a peer supervision with other colleagues where he will get professional feedback before deciding whether or not to refer the client to another counselor. In some institution and cultures, treatment focuses on helping clients take control of their lives. As such, some policies like no smoking may not be strict. However, it is notable that KCC Chemical Dependency Outpatient Treatment Center advocates for total abstinence. As such I would assume that if Peter was sneaking drinks instead of smoking, he would be held responsible for creating a negative image for the center. Understandably, most societies accept smoking in general while they struggle to overcome the deep-felt effects of alcoholism.
Vignette Two
The ethical issues here are that the client acquired a judgmental and demeaning impression of the intake counselor. Holding such a view can potentially affect the client’s recovery. He already feels somewhat better than the intake counselor. It is expectable that the client may dismiss his intake counselor from the moment he is properly acquainted.
It would a challenge for me to identify the best intervention to take because of two reasons. Suppose I decide to shift the client’s attention to something else, the possibility that the client will dismiss his intake counselor remains. On the other hand, I might try to change the client’s attitude towards the intake counselor but unfortunately, the client generalizes this attitude towards the institution and staff members. Such a scenario would imply that the client’s prognosis is likely to be very poor upon completing the treatment. After considering various possible outcomes like the ones given, I would prefer to intervene from a particular point of view. I would help the client briefly to gain insight that treatment is an individualized process. Encourage him to change his attitude and instead of comparing himself with other clients (or staff for that matter), he should take note of his state during admission and always compare himself with the state he was previously. I would explain that the purpose of treatment is to help him improve and as such comparing himself with himself would be the best decision. The purpose of using such an approach is because treatment should be client-server. Having such a discussion will be at least be aimed at helping the customer benefit maximumly from his treatment.
