Code of Ethics Review

1) A. 1 – d. AUTONOMY. Rehabilitation counselors respect the rights of clients to make decisions on their own behalf. On decisions that may limit or diminish the autonomy of clients, decision-making on behalf of clients is taken only after careful deliberation. Rehabilitation counselors advocate for the resumption of responsibility by clients as quickly as possible. (Pg. 3)

Explanation: This point was interesting to me because I have never thought about a decision having to be made that could diminish the autonomy of a client. Normally in class or in general, we talk about rehabilitation services being vocational, occupational, or psychological. This implies that the clients being served are aware and conscious enough to fully make their own decisions. This point made me really think about what would have to be done if a decision had to be made on behalf of my client in order to avoid harming their autonomy. In some of the other sections of the CRCC Code of Ethics examples of situations are given to help explain the point. I think that an example of this point should have been given to help us understand what type of decision would cause a client’s autonomy to be limited.

2) A. 5 – g. RECEIVING GIFTS. Rehabilitation counselors understand the challenges of accepting gifts from clients and recognize that in some cultures, small gifts are a token of respect and gratitude. When determining whether to accept gifts from clients, rehabilitation counselors take into account the cultural or community practice, therapeutic relationship, the monetary value of gifts, the motivation of the client for giving gifts, and the motivation of the rehabilitation counselor for accepting or declining gifts. (Pg. 5)

Explanation: This point was surprising to me because I have never thought about the subject of gifts in rehabilitation services. Now that this subject has been brought to my attention, I can see why it would need to be addressed in the CRCC Code of Ethics. Accepting a gift from a client could be interpreted many different ways. The client could see this as an invitation from the counselor for a nonprofessional relationship or vice versa. Accepting small gifts in order to maintain a positive relationship with a client is understandable as long as the counselor and client are aware of the gift’s meaning. This point definitely brings to light one of the challenges faced by rehabilitation counselors that is not commonly taken into consideration.

3) A. 9 – c. CONFIDENTIALITY. Rehabilitation counselors who provide services to terminally ill individuals who are considering hastening their own deaths have the option of breaking or not breaking confidentiality on this matter, depending on applicable laws and the specific circumstances of the situation and after seeking consultation or supervision from appropriate professional and legal parties. (Pg. 7) Explanation: I found this point very interesting because of the controversy this subject could cause. I did not know that the counselor does not have to break confidentiality when a client who is terminally ill expresses the idea of suicide. I understand how this subject could be taken in both extremes. On one hand, people might think that a counselor must break confidentiality when a client expresses the idea of harming him or herself, even if they are terminally ill. This rationale could come from the idea that suicide is a sin and must be prevented. It could also come from the thought that the counselor must report any expression of self-harm by law. On the other hand, people might think that it is understandable for a terminally ill person to want to end their life sooner. Allowing a person the choice of a quick death, instead of a painful slow death, could be considered more ethical. Either way, this point brings up a very touchy subject that most people do not think about being involved in as a rehabilitation counselor. That is why I