Counseling Ethics versus Religous Beliefs

[Satya]

As I said before, just me, she has done nothing wrong by standing up for her beliefs. She simply does not have a legitimate case. A legimate case can be made for allowing women to vote. A legitimate case can be made for not discriminating against black people. A legitimate case cannot be made for allowing a counselor to put her own personal beliefs and values ahead of her professional responsibilities to her client.

Can you provide a legitimate case for why counselors should be allowed to put their personal beliefs and values ahead of their professional responsibilities to their clients?

As far as what makes a good counselor, you are right. It is experience. In fact, it is because of my past experiences that I can be a social worker.

 

[just me]

Satya, I admit there is most always an exception to the rule when dealing with people. Every mind seems to be a bit different than the next. I may be wrong with that, but I feel it to be true. Those are my feelings and I have an inherent right to feel the way I do, however right or wrong they may seem to others.

I feel it to be similar when I look into the past at the first person that stood up for gay rights. There were all these people "hiding in their closets" because of the way things were. Yet, they silently watched as one person stood against the grain while the multitudes admonished the few regarding how things were supposed to be. Ultimately, more people stepped up to the plate and helped the gay rights movement along its way.....belly up to the bar, so to speak. I do not have to look into past records to see how certain institutions' "code of ethics" were back then before this all happened.

If feelings and intuition are not grounds to stand up for what one believes in, we must be approaching a new dimension in understanding the human mind. Should we counsel these people against all we know, asking them to extinguish their thoughts? Should we place them on Ridlin because we cannot accept their actions? Should we tell all infjs they must have problems? I do believe a simple belief in something to be grounds for making a case against something. If it is not, are we not all lost? Look at Galileo and Columbus....MLK.

I can, in all honesty, see where there would be difficulties handling this person's views. Of all the professions, a counselor should be more receptive to those that are different. For one to stand up for their beliefs to be thrown out of a profession, in a profession where we listen to people and help guide them into their self awareness and the awareness of others around them, it just does not float with me....doesn't feel right.

"I cannot counsel you properly regarding that issue because of my religious beliefs. Satya is a professional in that field and there you should go for counseling. Allow me to make a referral." This same person may help many a life in their profession, and may specialize in some specific field. Yet, the system wants to deny them that right because of that person's religious beliefs. The system wants to force someone into a grey or black area in their mind, which goes against everything I believe in. It seems no different than making an atheist study the Bible so they can help counsel a Christian. Would it not be better to allow them their rights than to force them into doing something they are against? They can keep their personal beliefs and values without subjugating their clients to them.....Christians do at Hospice all the time. will be back later

 

[Satya]

Yet, the system wants to deny them that right because of that person's religious beliefs. The system wants to force someone into a grey or black area in their mind, which goes against everything I believe in.

Really? The mediation program they are requiring of her consists of 4 things.

1. That she attend workshops on working with diverse populations.
2. That she read articles on counseling LGBT members.
3. That she write reports on her research of the LGBT community.
4. That she increase her exposure to the LGBT community.

Which of those 4 things is forcing her to act against her religious beliefs? Which of them is a violation of her rights? Are those unreasonable requests for a Counseling program to make?

It seems no different than making an atheist study the Bible so they can help counsel a Christian.

Which of the 4 above is like making an Atheist study a Bible? If an atheist chose to take a college course on Catholicism and then demanded that they not be forced to read the Bible, would they be justified in doing so? If an atheist was studying to be a minister would they be justified in arguing that studying the Bible is against their beliefs? To me, that seems like a more comparable example. Counseling inherently has requirements that an individual suspend their own personal beliefs for the duration of working with a client.

Furthermore, counselors and social workers can't always refer clients, especially if they are working in the public sector. Do you think that social workers want to work with delusional child molesters? Do you think that a social workers personal opinions and beliefs should stand above providing treatment to a child molester? Should every social worker who doesn't like child molesters simply refer them to another social worker? How long do you think it would be before no child molesters were receiving treatment?

 

[Jack]

As I said in my ealier example, a vegetarian who ardently believe in animal rights choosing to go to Butcher school makes about as much sense as her wanting to be a counselor.

I wouldn't go that far unless her patients magically all happen to be homosexuals. Further, doesn't your point about counselors suspending their personal beliefs make any counselor the vegetarian in this example anyway?

 

[Satya]

I wouldn't go that far unless her patients magically all happen to be homosexuals.

It doesn't have to be just homosexuals. Any individual who is engaging in a behaviors which she deems "sinful" or that conflict with her personal beliefs could be problematic for her in her role as counselor. What if a young woman comes to her after getting an abortion? What if a Muslim comes to her seeking help for depression? What if a husband reveals to her in private that he is cheating on his wife? What if a teenage boy asks her about masterbation and pornography? What if she encounters a chronic gambler who is seeking help for something completely unrelated to his gambling? What if she encounters a pair of child siblings who admit that they play "doctor" with each other? Do you honestly think that someone who would put their religious beliefs ahead of following the research and ethics of the profession could act as a competent counselor in any of those situations?

Further, doesn't your point about counselors suspending their personal beliefs make any counselor the vegetarian in this example anyway?

Huh? A competent counselor can put aside their personal beliefs for the duration of working with a client and work within the ethics of the profession. Both the ACA and NASW have codes of ethics, and knowledge of them is a requirement of certification and licensing. Furthermore, counselors work with clients within the client's own value system. It simply is not effective counseling to use other value systems when working with clients.

 

[Kgal]

Satya, I admit there is most always an exception to the rule when dealing with people. Every mind seems to be a bit different than the next. I may be wrong with that, but I feel it to be true. Those are my feelings and I have an inherent right to feel the way I do, however right or wrong they may seem to others.


"I cannot counsel you properly regarding that issue because of my religious beliefs. Satya is a professional in that field and there you should go for counseling. Allow me to make a referral." This same person may help many a life in their profession, and may specialize in some specific field. Yet, the system wants to deny them that right because of that person's religious beliefs. The system wants to force someone into a grey or black area in their mind, which goes against everything I believe in. It seems no different than making an atheist study the Bible so they can help counsel a Christian. Would it not be better to allow them their rights than to force them into doing something they are against? They can keep their personal beliefs and values without subjugating their clients to them.....Christians do at Hospice all the time. will be back later

Sorry for the digression here - but wanted to tell JustMe something.

While attending the masters program, in all our classes we were encouraged to read about and understand all types of diverse populations and their cultures - including religion and spiritual beliefs and customs.

Apparently in the past - spiritual beliefs were not included in the usual assessment tools regarding any given client. Now, however, it is. IMO that move was a good one as I fail to see how one could help a person without knowing their entire view of their world - which in the majority - includes a religious and/or spiritual belief system.

The NASW is not about trying to eliminate religion/spiritual beliefs in their social workers or their clients. They are trying to assure that ALL clients can best be empowered to achieve the best quality of life they can have at that time in their lives.

The ethical code of a social worker is not based upon science or research. It is based upon providing the best service to all clients everywhere - especially the oppressed groups.

What the code does do - is require the social worker to use best practice methods which are based upon science.

Years ago there was a movement to help children who were perceived to have attachment disorder which included a "birthing ritual" in their intervention method. There was nothing to substantiate their process - but many embraced it because they "believed" it would work. And I'm sure some of the clients did benefit from the process. But one young girl died - right in front of the workers - because they didn't believe her when she said she was suffocating. The thought she was lying.

[so sad]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...rstandings-about-reactive-attachment-disorder


This totally freaked out the counseling/social services industry and the push for rigorous scientific methods has reached an all new fervor. As well it should.

I have studied many religions and their customs and cultural systems. I have purposefully attended a variety of worship sites and asked a million questions when I find someone willing to talk. All of these efforts have paid off for me as I have learned to love them all. IMO a client's religious view is paramount to empowering them. It is integral to what makes them tick.

I received an email yesterday from one of my fundamentalist friends using this news story to yet further alienate and polarize people regarding having God in this country vs not having God permeate our laws and education systems. I was unhappy to see that. What a waste of people's time and effort.

To me the student was being asked to accept the fact there is no evidence for changing a person's gender identity because there is none. Period.

She was not asked to change her religious beliefs. She was asked to only use Best Practice methods.

 

[yukon1]

religion = narrow minded???? is this so... in some cases most assuredly

 

[Satya]

religion = narrow minded???? is this so... in some cases most assuredly

There are plenty of nonreligious people with narrow minds. Being narrow minded is not a prerequisite to being religious.

 

[just me]

Sorry for the digression here - but wanted to tell JustMe something.

While attending the masters program, in all our classes we were encouraged to read about and understand all types of diverse populations and their cultures - including religion and spiritual beliefs and customs.

Apparently in the past - spiritual beliefs were not included in the usual assessment tools regarding any given client. Now, however, it is. IMO that move was a good one as I fail to see how one could help a person without knowing their entire view of their world - which in the majority - includes a religious and/or spiritual belief system.

The NASW is not about trying to eliminate religion/spiritual beliefs in their social workers or their clients. They are trying to assure that ALL clients can best be empowered to achieve the best quality of life they can have at that time in their lives.

The ethical code of a social worker is not based upon science or research. It is based upon providing the best service to all clients everywhere - especially the oppressed groups.

What the code does do - is require the social worker to use best practice methods which are based upon science.

http://

Thank you. Something is still bothering me. The more I post and read others' posts, the more I feel I may be able to either put it to rest or bring it to the surface. Somethng inside seems to be wanting to stand up for this person and others like this person. Given time, maybe I can find it.

 

[Satya]

Thank you. Something is still bothering me. The more I post and read others' posts, the more I feel I may be able to either put it to rest or bring it to the surface. Somethng inside seems to be wanting to stand up for this person and others like this person. Given time, maybe I can find it.

Probably just group loyalty. You waanna help a fellow Christian.

 

[Jack]

It doesn't have to be just homosexuals. Any individual who is engaging in a behaviors which she deems "sinful" or that conflict with her personal beliefs could be problematic for her in her role as counselor. What if a young woman comes to her after getting an abortion? What if a Muslim comes to her seeking help for depression? What if a husband reveals to her in private that he is cheating on his wife? What if a teenage boy asks her about masterbation and pornography? What if she encounters a chronic gambler who is seeking help for something completely unrelated to his gambling? What if she encounters a pair of child siblings who admit that they play "doctor" with each other? Do you honestly think that someone who would put their religious beliefs ahead of following the research and ethics of the profession could act as a competent counselor in any of those situations?

Huh? A competent counselor can put aside their personal beliefs for the duration of working with a client and work within the ethics of the profession. Both the ACA and NASW have codes of ethics, and knowledge of them is a requirement of certification and licensing. Furthermore, counselors work with clients within the client's own value system. It simply is not effective counseling to use other value systems when working with clients.

But my point is her being proverbial vegetarian in a butcher shop is just akin to every counselor as I am sure everyone encounters at some point a good number of people practicing behaviors that they personally disagree with.

I don't even see this as necessarily a religious issue, just a case of one person who refuses to put aside her particular personal values for the sake of counseling effectively just like every other counselor does. (Then of course having a hissy when called to account)

By making the discussion a religious issue she is either missing the point of the policy to begin with, (which is possible) or understands what she is doing, and trying to become a political martyr.

 

[Satya]

But my point is her being proverbial vegetarian in a butcher shop is just akin to every counselor as I am sure everyone encounters at some point a good number of people practicing behaviors that they personally disagree with.

You misunderstood the point. The example was in reference to her choosing to go into the counseling program. Just as Butchers are expected to cut up animals, Counselors are expected to suspend their personal beliefs when working with clients. And it is no more justified for a vegetarian to go to Butcher school and expect them to accommodate her desire to not harm animals than it does for a fundamentalist Christian to go into a Counseling program and expect them to accommodate her inability to suspend her personal beliefs when working with diverse clients.

I don't even see this as necessarily a religious issue, just a case of one person who refuses to put aside her particular personal values for the sake of counseling effectively just like every other counselor does. (Then of course having a hissy when called to account)

As you suggest, it's a religious issue because she made it one. In the lawsuit she is arguing that her freedom to exercise her religion is being denied and that the university is discriminating because of her religious beliefs.

By making the discussion a religious issue she is either missing the point of the policy to begin with, (which is possible) or understands what she is doing, and trying to become a political martyr.

I think the latter option is most likely.

 

[just me]

Are there links to provide reading in the news media regarding this specific case?

Group loyalty is possible, but I have had a history of standing by what I feel to be right before doing so. I would not want to do any of those four things. I felt somewhat uncomfortable googling the subject. This person obviously feels the same.

Mind you, I almost never speak my whole mind. I know few that do.

I would like to add this has been a much more civilized conversation than in the years past, for which I am very thankful, regarding said subject.

 

[Satya]

Are there links to provide reading in the news media regarding this specific case?

Group loyalty is possible, but I have had a history of standing by what I feel to be right before doing so. I would not want to do any of those four things. I felt somewhat uncomfortable googling the subject. This person obviously feels the same.

Mind you, I almost never speak my whole mind. I know few that do.

I would like to add this has been a much more civilized conversation than in the years past, for which I am very thankful, regarding said subject.

I included one in the OP.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-st...sensitivity-training/story?id=11261490&page=1

You would really feel uncomfortable just researching about and being around gay people? That is pretty extreme.

 

[Skoffin]

I feel weird any time I lean towards agreeing with Satya.

The lines are a bit more blurry than people would like to make them seem, and being too strict about gender roles can hurt a lot of people.

It's these gender stereotypes that have some people convinced that I am a lesbian.

I'm out of place talking about how schools and the like work, however I find that most government institutions are run with bias and other nonsense anyway.

I think the girl should have just taken the order given by her university, although I likely wouldn't have wanted to go to the gay parade either.

 

[just me]

I included one in the OP.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-st...sensitivity-training/story?id=11261490&page=1

You would really feel uncomfortable just researching about and being around gay people? That is pretty extreme.

I think for a man in his late fifties whose life has been down many paths, I show a lot of tolerance with others. I try to understand. However, to make me do that I would feel uncomfortable at the very least. I feel it possible others could feel the way I do. All you young whippersnappers
have been around these things longer than I. My exposure has been limited, and I shared on this forum how a man invited me to his house on the river any time; stating I was not like all the others that were there just to use him. He was tolerant of me, too.

We all have comfort zones. Most of us tolerate things outside those comfort zones. I do not see that as being extreme: just different from the way you see it. You must realize I get uncomfortable around parties, too, among other things. Thank you for the link. I do not click on most links, but rather google them and click on the respective sites. I googled your four letter abbreviations, too, along with the respective groups with their
codes of ethics. I should hope you would find that more interesting and less extreme, should you think about it.

She has the right to stand on what she believes. "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpSZKGzsJ1Q"]YouTube- You Got To Stand For Something[/ame]

 

[Jack]

You misunderstood the point.

Whaddya know. I did misunderstand your point.

I think the latter option is most likely.

Now that I think about it, maybe its not an either/or. I wouldn't be surprised to find this individual so... sincere, in her ideology, that even recognizing her mistake, she could still think she is doing a good thing.

Anyway, enough of my rambling.

 

[Satya]

Now that I think about it, maybe its not an either/or. I wouldn't be surprised to find this individual so... sincere, in her ideology, that even recognizing her mistake, she could still think she is doing a good thing.

Nah, given the Alliance Defense Funds part in this, I have little doubt that the entire purpose of this was to bring a social conservative challenge to the counseling profession's ethics all the way to the Supreme Court. They have even vowed today to do so in the other case that was dismissed.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/lawyer...rom-counseling-program-say-appeal-is-imminen/

This is just more political martyrism from social conservatives trying to paint themselves as being discriminated against for their religious beliefs.

 

[just me]

Nah, given the Alliance Defense Funds part in this, I have little doubt that the entire purpose of this was to bring a social conservative challenge to the counseling profession's ethics all the way to the Supreme Court. They have even vowed today to do so in the other case that was dismissed.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/lawyer...rom-counseling-program-say-appeal-is-imminen/

This is just more political martyrism from social conservatives trying to paint themselves as being discriminated against for their religious beliefs.

Very opinionated view, which is alright. In my opinion, I don't see anyone as using this young lady to further their political agenda. I can see how people may feel that way, though, watching recent news and history.

 

[Satya]

Very opinionated view, which is alright. In my opinion, I don't see anyone as using this young lady to further their political agenda. I can see how people may feel that way, though, watching recent news and history.

Justme, if it was only one case that the ADF was taking to court under these circumstance, then I might agree with you. However, they have at least 5 of these cases going on at once. Furthermore, in the recent trials in California and Washington, the anti gay side vehemently argued that anti gay witnesses shouldn't have to reveal themselves for fear of their own safety from gay rights protesters. Add to that the recent trend by organizations like NOM's attempts to go out on the street and stir up gay rights protesters into a frenzy of anger so that they can videotape it and use it to justify their position that they are constantly under threat of violence, and it becomes pretty clear that the anti gay movement has decided to use political martyrdom as their new strategy. All of these organizations take their calls from the Heritage Foundation, which is the social conservative think tank of the country and which has influenced these organization's strategy for years. It isn't opinion, it's a simple fact that any seasoned veteran of the political circus could figure out.