O’Donohue has identified 37 criticisms of the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (Ethics Code), although many of his criticisms go far beyond what is found written in the APA Ethics Code, to include the process of adjudicating ethics complaints by the American Psychological Association Ethics Committee, and the process by which the Ethics Code was developed. The authors claim that a major shortcoming of O’Donohue’s article is that he adopted an unrealistically expansive role for (...) the Ethics Code that was not clearly linked to furthering the goals of the ethics code revision. (shrink)

Professionals often find themselves in ethical dilemmas and seek the advice of their peers. This article offers a template for those who wish to assist their colleagues in these situations. After making various assumptions, the author lists questions to ask oneself before accepting such requests. Then, a step-by-step framework is offered, followed by recommendations.

ABSTRACT The authors argue that individual psychologists have an obligation to understand, review, and comment on upcoming revisions of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Psychologists may want to consider several factors as they review and prepare comments on these revisions. Among other things, commenting psychologists should consider the purposes of ethics codes and how the writing of a code can meet or balance these often-conflicting purposes; the overarching ethical theory or theories that should form the basis (...) of the APA Ethics Code; and the extent to which individual standards are useful and comprehensive, and avoid unnecessary harm to both the public and psychologists. The authors provide examples from the current and recent APA Ethics Codes to illustrate the types of decisions that psychologists must make when evaluating revisions to the APA Ethics Code. (shrink)

Smythe and Murray presented the basic ethical issues in narrative research in a comprehensive, well-reasoned, and direct manner. In this critique, we highlight 3 issues. Two matters appear to challenge the internal inconsistency of the assumptions of NR: privileging some voices over others and a potential inherent conflict of interest for some researchers. We also examine some issues regarding the protection of research participants and conclude with modest recommendations.