It also creates a dual relationship situation, a relationship that is secondary to, and outside of, the therapy one. Clinical Consideration :All bartering arrangements are, at the very least, a boundary crossing. If the clinician decides to proceed with a barter arrangement after considering all of the factors involved, a detailed written contract that clearly protects the client’s welfare and is documented in the client’s chart is strongly recommended even if it is not specifically required by the clinician’s professional code of ethics.
Bartering by definition requires negotiation. Negotiating with a client who may be in distress at the time becomes a questionable situation. Even under the best of circumstances there could be misunderstandings and unintentional harm to the client. Bartering may lead to loss of objectivity on the part of the therapist, for example if the client wants to barter a service or good that the therapist does not need or want. While bartering of goods likely constitutes an expansion or crossing of therapy boundaries, bartering of services always creates a dual relationship. The therapist has entered into a service agreement with a client that takes place outside of the therapy room, so great caution is needed if the arrangement is being considered.
BOUNDARIES AND SOCIAL MEDIA
● Use of online advertising was viewed as unquestionably ethical (22.2%) or ethical under many circumstances (60.3%). However, 12.7% indicated that they did not know or were unsure if this was ethical or if it was a boundary crossing. ● Providing online education via social media like YouTube was found to be unquestionably ethical (14.3%) or ethical under many circumstances (57.1%), but 18.3% did not know or were unsure if this was a boundary crossing. ● They also looked at views regarding nonsexual multiple relationships, which were defined as a social media relationship between therapist and client or between therapist and someone close to the client. They found that the majority of participants (78.4%) rated this as unquestionably unethical or ethical only in rare circumstances (19.2%). Only 0.8% expressed uncertainty about the ethicality of this boundary crossing. These findings suggest a good deal of uncertainty on the therapists’ part about whether boundaries are crossed in some social media situations. search on the client. The only exceptions are for the protection of the client or other people from serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm (Standard 1.03). They should avoid searching or gathering client information electronically unless there are compelling professional reasons and when appropriate, with the client’s informed consent (Standard1.07). ● NBCC (2023) states that counselors must respect the privacy of the client’s social media accounts and shall not access those accounts without specific client permission, a discussion with the client, documentation of risks and benefits, and for a specific clinical purpose (Standard 113). ● ACA (2014) states that counselors respect the privacy of their clients’ presence on social media unless they are given consent by the client to view social media information (Standard H.6.c). ● APA (2017) is silent on the use of social media. However, the code does state that psychologists should avoid multiple relationships if they could impair their objectivity or if there is risk of exploitation or harm to the client. services if they need therapy in the future and may create unrealistic expectations on the part of the client if they see a new therapist. Fortunately, some of the professional ethics codes do address the issue of connecting with a client on social media. ● NASW (2017) states that social workers should be aware that posting personal information on media sites might cause boundary confusion, inappropriate dual relationships, or harm to clients. The code specifically states that social workers should avoid accepting requests from or engaging in personal relationships with clients on social networking sites (Standard 1.06). They should avoid communication with clients using technology such as social networking sites,
In the age of social media, it has become increasingly difficult to avoid inadvertently entering into a social relationship with a client. The rapid expansion of virtual personal, social, and professional relationships has blurred boundaries. A Pew Research Center (2021) public study found that in 2021, 7 in 10 Americans reported using social media to connect with each other, share information, and entertain themselves. This includes 84% of individuals ages 18-29, 81% of individuals ages 30-49, 73% of individuals ages 50-64, and 45% of individuals ages 65+. You Tube was the most popular social media platform (81%) followed by Facebook (69%), Instagram (40%), and Pinterest (31%). The Pew social media study also found that for many individuals, social media use was part of their daily routine. Among U.S. adults who reported that they use social media, over 70% use it on a daily basis. Given the widespread use of social media and online platforms, Wu and Sonne (2021) surveyed therapists’ understanding of the ethicality and boundary issues related to several common online behaviors. They found that: Targeted Searches Consider this scenario: Joe meets his therapist for the first time and leaves the session feeling that he will have a good working relationship with the counselor. When he gets home, he uses search engines and social media links to find out information about the therapist’s education and training, his social relationships, and even his political views. At the same time, after the session the counselor googles his new client and also searches for him on Facebook and Instagram. Do these behaviors constitute a boundary crossing or violation? Wu and Sonne (2021) found that most therapists viewed client-targeted googling as a boundary crossing. One-third (31.0%) rated this crossing as unquestionably unethical, and one-half (48.4%) rated the crossing as ethical only under rare circumstances. Interestingly, 10.3% expressed uncertainty about whether patient-targeted internet searches were unethical or a boundary crossing. Fortunately, professional codes of ethics have adapted and most specifically address the issue of information searches on a client. ● NASW (2021) states that social workers should obtain consent from the client before conducting an electronic “Friending” or “Following” Healthcare professionals who participate on social media are likely to face dilemmas related to boundary crossings and boundary violations due to the inherent self-disclosure that posting on social media sites entails. Clinicians and clients alike knowingly and willingly post personal information on various social media sites. Accepting a client’s “friend” request or a client “following” you on your social media accounts are potentially problematic. Loss of therapist privacy, loss of therapist objectivity in treatment, inappropriate therapist self- disclosure, or issues with power differentials may come into play. “Friending” a client may lead them to believe that a relationship exists outside of the online platform. Becoming social friends with a former client deprives them of the therapist’s professional
Page 67
Book Code: SWUS1524B
EliteLearning.com/Social-Work
Powered by FlippingBook