![](/img/h/j/hjlx8ikl.png)
Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making | 2
American Counseling Association | The Center for Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research
Justice, as Kitchener (1984) points out, is “treating equals equally and unequals unequally
but in proportion to their relevant dierences” (p. 49). Justice does not mean treating all
individuals the same. If an individual is to be treated dierently, the counselor needs to
be able to oer a rationale that explains the necessity and appropriateness of treating the
individual dierently. An example of justice is that a counselor would give a person who is
blind a form that is in braille, or would go through the form with that individual orally, instead
of giving him or her a standard written form to ll out. But the counselor would treat him or
her the same as any other client in all other regards.
Benecence reects the counselor’s responsibility to contribute to the welfare of the
client. Simply stated, it means to do good, to be proactive, and also to prevent harm when
possible (Forester-Miller & Rubenstein, 1992). Benecence can come in many forms, such as
prevention and early intervention actions that contribute to the betterment of clients.
Nonmalecence is the concept of not causing harm to others. Often explained as “above all,
do no harm,” this principle is considered by some to be the most critical of all the principles,
even though theoretically they are all of equal weight (Kitchener, 1984; Rosenbaum, 1982;
Stadler, 1986). This principle reects both the idea of not inicting intentional harm, and not
engaging in actions that risk harming others (Forester-Miller & Rubenstein, 1992). Weighing
potential harm against potential benets is important in a counselor’s eorts toward
ensuring “no harm.”
Fidelity involves the notions of loyalty, faithfulness, and honoring commitments. Clients
must be able to trust the counselor and have faith in the therapeutic relationship if growth is
to occur. Therefore, the counselor must take care not to threaten the therapeutic relationship
or to leave obligations unfullled.
When exploring an ethical dilemma, the counselor needs to examine the situation and how each of
the above principles may apply to that particular case. At times, this examination alone will clarify
the issues so that the means for resolving the dilemma becomes clear. When an initial review of the
ve foundational principles does not provide direction, it is helpful to be able to work through the
steps of an ethical decision-making model. The following sections describe the steps of the ethical
decision-making model.
Ethical Decision-Making Model
We have incorporated the work of Forester-Miller and Rubenstein (1992), Haas and Malouf (1989),
Kitchener (1984), Stadler (1986), and Van Hoose and Paradise (1979) into a practical, sequential,
seven-step, ethical decision-making model. A description and discussion of the steps follow. We
encourage counselors to consider the worldview of their clients and others who may be aected in
each step of the decision-making model (Luke, Goodrich, & Gilbride, 2013).
1. Identify the problem.
Gather as much information as you can that will illuminate the situation. In doing so, it is
important to be as specic and objective as possible. Writing ideas on paper often helps
provide clarity. Outline the facts, separating out innuendos, assumptions, hypotheses, or
suspicions. There are several questions to ask yourself: Is it an ethical, legal, professional, or
clinical problem? Is it a combination of more than one of these? If a legal question exists, be
sure to seek legal advice.
Other questions that may be useful to ask yourself are: Is the issue related to me and what
I am or am not doing? Is it related to a client and/or the client’s signicant others and what
they are or are not doing? Is it related to technology in the provision of services or of storing