Are We On-Duty or Off-Duty in Usenet? (Letter from the APA Ethics Committee)
lpacker
I would like to summarize a letter I just received from the APA
Ethics Committee, because it addresses an issue that is relevant to
both psychologists and the public here, and one we have discussed many
times in spp: whether we are "on-duty" or "off-duty" in usenet.
The APA Ethical Guidelines state that the conduct of an APA member may
be reviewed under the code "... only if the activity is part of his or
her work-related functions or the activity is psychological in nature.
Personal activities having no connection to or effect on specifically
psychological roles are not subject to the Ethics Code." (from
Standard 1.01)
In 1998, and as many people here know because he publicized it, I
filed a formal ethical complaint against Brad Jesness. That
complaint had nothing to do with the substance of his FAQ or his
views. It had everything to do with his conduct towards those who
disagree with him. But are usenet threads or discussions
"work-related" or "activities.... psychological nature"? That question
is the first one the Ethics Committee had to address, as if the
behavior did NOT occur within a work-related function or function
circumscribed by the standards, they could not consider whether the
behavior was reviewable under the ethical guidelines.
After conducting an initial investigation pursuant to their rules and
procedures -- and as Brad (not I) made public -- the Ethics Committee
decided to open a formal case against Brad, and they sent him a letter
charging him with possible violation of (two of) the ethical
standards. Following initial meetings, they voted to continue their
investigation, and held another meeting last month.
So why did they eventually close the case without action? Their
letter gives their rationale, and states that they wanted to
articulate their rationale because they do not want their decision to
be interpreted as to indicate approval of Brad's behavior. The bottom
line for the Committee was that they were unable to conclusively
determine that Brad's behavior was "work-related" or in connection
with the psycholgist's activities or roles as a psychologist."
Without that determination, the Committee could not go forward to
determine what, if any action, should be taken.
So..... where does that leave all of us in terms of our understanding
of the application of the guidelines? It would appear that when APA
members are in usenet, they are generally not considered to be
"working" or in a "psychologist role" when they are having discussions
about psychotherapy or otherwise interacting. What is not clear from
this case and their statement is what would happen if the APA member
was giving specific advice of a psychological nature to a member of
the public or if the APA member was actively promoting their
professional services in usenet, but I suspect that might
significantly change things and make the behavior reviewable.
Historically, the APA has taken a different perspective on the public
conduct of its members than our European counterparts. I do remember
Edna explaining to me how they were always considered "on duty" and
needed to write or post as if colleagues and patients were reading the
posts. The APA recognized that its members are entitled to private
lives. It just never really clarified what constitutes an unpaid --
but still professional -- switch in hats.
Their decision in response to this complaint is the first indication
we have of how they are really viewing discussions and conduct in
usenet. Their decision also explains why they dismissed Brad's
complaint against Dan Rogers [another one of Brad's errors today was
in claiming that some spp posters are under investigation by the
Ethics Committee -- none are.] While Brad might want to claim that Dan
or any other APA member acted unethically in a professional capacity
because of statements in usenet, the APA Ethics Committee probably
won't be able to hear those complaints for the same reason they
dismissed the case against him -- lack of determination that the APA
member was in a 'work-related' role. And if the state boards of
psychology follow the APA's lead, then they will not be able to hear
complaints about conduct in usenet threads unless their state's
regulations or statutes indicate that a psychologist is always
"on-duty." This is separate, of course, from what might happen if
the psychologist actually engages in giving advice or attempts to
promote their professional practice, etc.
In summary, their closing of the case doesn't mean that they approve
of his behavior or that the complaint was "bogus," or that he is owed
any apology at all. I think it means that they need to give greater
clarity in the guidelines to the definition of "activities of a
psychological nature" and issue some statement for the membership
about usenet. I will be writing back to the Committee to thank them
for their deliberations and explanation and to encourage them to take
a more proactive stance by issuing some statement that can be freely
disseminated.
I hope that this post can stimulate a serious discussion of the topic
and not just be a jumping off point for more attacks on individuals.
Leslie
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated is a moderated newsgroup.
Before submitting an article, please read the guidelines which are posted
here bimonthly or the charter on the Web at http://www.grohol.com/sppm/
Submissions are acknowledged automatically.
Tim McNamara
lpa...@optonline.net wrote:
<snip>
> The APA Ethical Guidelines state that the conduct of an APA member may
> be reviewed under the code "... only if the activity is part of his or
> her work-related functions or the activity is psychological in nature.
> Personal activities having no connection to or effect on specifically
> psychological roles are not subject to the Ethics Code." (from
> Standard 1.01)
<snip>
> So..... where does that leave all of us in terms of our understanding
> of the application of the guidelines? It would appear that when APA
> members are in usenet, they are generally not considered to be
> "working" or in a "psychologist role" when they are having discussions
> about psychotherapy or otherwise interacting. What is not clear from
> this case and their statement is what would happen if the APA member
> was giving specific advice of a psychological nature to a member of
> the public or if the APA member was actively promoting their
> professional services in usenet, but I suspect that might
> significantly change things and make the behavior reviewable.
<snip>
A case certainly could be made that anyone participating in a Usenet
newgroup who has identified him/herself as a psychologist is indeed
acting in a "psychologist role." This term is so vague, however, as to
be practically unenforceable in this situation. On the other hand,
trying to enforce the ethical guidelines to limit the scope of public
statements made by psychologists participating in newsgroups could easily
run afoul of free speech. I think that the APA decision in Brad's case
was made to avoid this.
> Historically, the APA has taken a different perspective on the public
> conduct of its members than our European counterparts. I do remember
> Edna explaining to me how they were always considered "on duty" and
> needed to write or post as if colleagues and patients were reading the
> posts. The APA recognized that its members are entitled to private
> lives. It just never really clarified what constitutes an unpaid --
> but still professional -- switch in hats.
<snip>
This is the nub of the matter. If I am posting as a psychologist and a
member of the APA, and if the content of my post either claims directly
or indirectly that I am posting as an expert, then is my post governened
by the standards of professional conduct espoused by the APA?
I personally think that the answer is generally a "yes." If I had *not*
identified myself as a psychologist, did not present my statements in a
professional/authoritative/expert tone, etc., than the answer would
probably be a "no." It is much the same if I am interviewed on the news
as a psychologist offering expert commentary (which the APA would
probably consider to be "work related" or "psychologist in nature")
versus being interviewed as an on-the-spot "man on the street" interview.
I would be very sorry if the APA's decision boiled down to something as
narrow as whether or not the psychologist is being remunerated. That
would make the Ethical Guidelines unacceptably narrow in application.
<snip>
> I hope that this post can stimulate a serious discussion of the topic
> and not just be a jumping off point for more attacks on individuals.
Me, too. Thanks for having the courage to bring this up again in this
forum.
lpacker
>In article <SPPM1001202...@news.xmission.com>,
>lpa...@optonline.net wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> The APA Ethical Guidelines state that the conduct of an APA member may
>> be reviewed under the code "... only if the activity is part of his or
>> her work-related functions or the activity is psychological in nature.
>> Personal activities having no connection to or effect on specifically
>> psychological roles are not subject to the Ethics Code." (from
>> Standard 1.01)
>
><snip>
>
>> So..... where does that leave all of us in terms of our understanding
>> of the application of the guidelines? It would appear that when APA
>> members are in usenet, they are generally not considered to be
>> "working" or in a "psychologist role" when they are having discussions
>> about psychotherapy or otherwise interacting. What is not clear from
>> this case and their statement is what would happen if the APA member
>> was giving specific advice of a psychological nature to a member of
>> the public or if the APA member was actively promoting their
>> professional services in usenet, but I suspect that might
>> significantly change things and make the behavior reviewable.
>
><snip>
>
>A case certainly could be made that anyone participating in a Usenet
>newgroup who has identified him/herself as a psychologist is indeed
>acting in a "psychologist role."
While I don't think that particular case *could* be made successfully,
I think the public perception issue does need to be addressed, i.e.,
if the public assumes that once someone identifies themselves as an
APA member or psychologist then they are in their professional role,
then the APA needs to factor that in to their development of the
ethics code -- even if it's only to point how APA members can be
clearer that they are NOT in their professional capacity. I am sure
that there are many people who would argue that we should not be
subject to the public's demands/whims.... i.e., just because they want
us to be on-duty shouldn't mean that we have to be, but how many times
have we seen members of the public making comments in spp about how
they're dismayed or upset by the behavior of MH professionals? They
are either assuming that once identified, we are on-duty, or expecting
it of us.
And on some level -- and even though it would limit us -- I really
wish that the APA would raise the bar so that everyone was on the same
page and posting as if we were in work settings. That wouldn't deal
with the issue of whether the guidelines would apply if we go into a
non-psychology related usenet group and aren't even discussing
psychology or presenting ourselves as psychologists, but at least it
would give us all some common understanding and standards while we are
in psychology-related usenet groups. If the APA did make a clear
statement, then at least we'd all know what standards we are being
held to (or at least APA members would be held to those standards, and
we'd have to see if the state boards of psychology followed suit).
>This term is so vague, however, as to
>be practically unenforceable in this situation. On the other hand,
>trying to enforce the ethical guidelines to limit the scope of public
>statements made by psychologists participating in newsgroups could easily
>run afoul of free speech. I think that the APA decision in Brad's case
>was made to avoid this.
You might be right, but I don't think that was the main issue. As
psychologists, we voluntarily agree to give up some of our "free
speech." For example, we are bound by confidentiality and privilege
and have no protected "free speech" if we think of revealing patient
information, right? Then, too, some utterances or publications are
not protected free speech but are libel and hence, actionable
(something that was pointed out to me by individuals from the Ethics
office in phone conversations prior to their deliberations and
decision).
It may seem odd that I would actually be a bit sympathetic to the
Ethics Committee in considering this case (although I was quite
disturbed at how long it took them to get to it, given the ongoing
nature of the complaint), but I really don't envy them this case.
Consider this: suppose that they had held that Brad violated the
ethical guidelines, and Brad turned around and said, "You haven't
proven I was in a professional or work-related activity and now you've
damaged my reputation by abc..." -- then what? They took a
conservative stance..... not that the burden of proof hadn't been met
for the offensiveness and inappropriateness of his conduct (because
they never got to that, although from statements they made, there is
little or no doubt in my mind as to what they would have held), but
that as long as there was some doubt as to whether this constituted
work-related activity or "activity of a psychological nature in the
psychologist's roles," then they couldn't pursue it further.
>
>> Historically, the APA has taken a different perspective on the public
>> conduct of its members than our European counterparts. I do remember
>> Edna explaining to me how they were always considered "on duty" and
>> needed to write or post as if colleagues and patients were reading the
>> posts. The APA recognized that its members are entitled to private
>> lives. It just never really clarified what constitutes an unpaid --
>> but still professional -- switch in hats.
>
><snip>
>
>This is the nub of the matter. If I am posting as a psychologist and a
>member of the APA, and if the content of my post either claims directly
>or indirectly that I am posting as an expert, then is my post governened
>by the standards of professional conduct espoused by the APA?
>
>I personally think that the answer is generally a "yes."
I would think so, but now I'm not totally sure how they would view
it.... keep in mind that some of the evidence they had were posts that
Brad signed as "APA member." But what about posts that were within
the same vein or thread but that he didn't sign that way? Are they
still "professionally" related? What about if the behavior starts in
a professional context/discussion and then there's no further
professional communication but just personal harassment? Is the
person's conduct still reviewable or they now solely in their private,
off-duty capacity?
> If I had *not*
>identified myself as a psychologist, did not present my statements in a
>professional/authoritative/expert tone, etc., than the answer would
>probably be a "no." It is much the same if I am interviewed on the news
>as a psychologist offering expert commentary (which the APA would
>probably consider to be "work related" or "psychologist in nature")
>versus being interviewed as an on-the-spot "man on the street" interview.
I agree. But now take it one step further..... after you are
interviewed as a psychologist and the interview is over, but while you
are still in the room, another topic comes up and you say something or
do something. Assume for purposes of discussion that the other topic
is psychology-related but is not your area of expertise and that you
think you are replying as a private individual and not as a(n expert)
psychologist. Is your conduct reviewable under the guidelines?
>
>I would be very sorry if the APA's decision boiled down to something as
>narrow as whether or not the psychologist is being remunerated. That
>would make the Ethical Guidelines unacceptably narrow in application.
No, I don't see them going that far, but I do think they need greater
clarity.
>
><snip>
>
>> I hope that this post can stimulate a serious discussion of the topic
>> and not just be a jumping off point for more attacks on individuals.
>
>Me, too. Thanks for having the courage to bring this up again in this
>forum.
You're welcome, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. Long before I
ever posted to usenet I had raised this issue (back in my MedSig/CIS
days). It is an issue that I think is important to address, and I
will work on drafting a detailed letter to the APA that provides a
number of scenarios and asks them if they can get consensus as to
whether the behavior would even be reviewable under the wording of the
existing standards -- and if not, they need to change the
"applicability" section of the standards so that APA members have a
clearer sense of whether the APA considers certain activities
"on-duty" or "off-duty."
If there is serious interest in this here, I will be happy to share a
draft of the letter when it is available so that others can provide
input, or perhaps a number of people may want to sign the letter
encouraging the APA to clarify its view of usenet activities.