An ethical dilemma-when a counseling agency needs counseling: To lie, or not to lie.
If students really knew what went on internally in some counseling offices, they might be even LESS motivated to go than they currently are. Being a student of counseling psychology myself, I am put in an ethical quandary- should someone tell the truth and risk discouraging students in need of counseling more than current stigma, or keep their mouth shut and pretend there are no problems, holding no one ethically responsible for inappropriate decision making? The question is what is more ethical? Leaving the truth of a negative and hypocritical setting uncovered, or ruin a reputation and build more stigma? I caution those who read this not to reject counseling as a process, but rather to be cautious about counseling practices protecting client rights. The following is an ethical dilemma recently told to me concerning this issue. Details of the story have been altered to protect confidentiality.
A public, state- funded counseling office is holding interviews for new counselors. They are specifically seeking someone to cover alcohol and substance abuse counseling. After a lengthy and thorough interviewing process, they finally select who they believe is the most viable candidate, and this person, Jo, takes the job. During the first few months of Jo’s employment, a private situation arises between one of the other members of the office, Ryan, also a new employee, and Jo. Off the clock, on a birthday jaunt through downtown D.C., Jo takes Ryan to meet some of Jo’s friends. During this get together, unbeknownst to Jo, Ryan is given a date rape drug by one of Jo’s friends. Later that evening, as they are traveling downtown, Ryan becomes very ill and incoherent because of the drug. Jo, thinking Ryan has had too much to drink, drops Ryan off at a fast food restaurant and continues Jo’s night of celebration. Ryan ends up transported via ambulance to the hospital. A week later Ryan returns to work as usual, being careful to avoid Jo and any further incident. However, Jo begins harassing Ryan and threatening Ryan over the DC incident. Ryan, feeling uncomfortable and afraid to go to work, explains the situation in full to Jo, in hopes that Jo would understand and leave the issue alone. However, the threats continue in the workplace. Ryan continues going to work avoiding confrontation, and eventually the threats stop. A few months later, Ryan is informed by a supervisor that Ryan’s position will no longer be necessary to the counseling office. Jo, as the lead alcohol and substance abuse counselor is receiving more clients than Jo can handle, and needs another counselor to help share the load. Ryan is informed Ryan is welcome to apply to this job to be Jo’s assistant, but otherwise, needs to make future employment plans. Ryan’s supervisor is aware of the situation between Ryan and Jo, however since Ryan’s supervisor delivered the message about Jo’s future assistant to Ryan, Ryan feels it is useless to bring the DC issue up with Ryan’s supervisor. Ryan decides to move on to a different agency.
What is more ethical? Does Ryan let sleeping dogs lie, holding no one accountable? Or should Ryan follow the situation to an end, risking Ryan and Jo’s professional status, as well as the reputation of the agency? Who, if anyone, is at fault, and how should the situation be handled?
