On the question of Jurisdictional issues, it is absolutely important that we have an understanding of the guidelines as we go online with therapy and therapeutic practices.
Up until now jurisdictional guidelines have been concerned about regulating local area info and therapeutic services, however online counseling therapy and mental health covers the world; you can have a client anywhere the client has a computer. This brings with it many questions for mental health professionals.
In this video I review a little bit about jurisdictional issues as we continue to work towards bringing those changes to the new reality being demanded by the clients who want access to whichever therapist they choose.
Online counselling therapy is well on its way to being the way that therapy is delivered.
What do you think? Do you think that the laws should change regarding jurisdictional issues, or do you think the laws are current enough and will be able to cover the expectations regarding online therapy?
I look forward to your comments.
With You in Mind,
Norm Quantz
4 Responses to “Jurisdictional Issues Surrounding Online Counseling Therapy”
I think existing legal frameworks are hardly sufficient as they fail to take into account the properly political dimension of globalized healthcare… that is to say, there is no reason why health consumers in NZ or Australia or UK should be subject to the State laws of California, nor any reason why the particular health-law frameworks of individual states should take precedence over the norms and values that are self-emerging in online communities.
In fact, I am more interested in the role of psycho-ethics as regimes of control, to be resisted in the transnational health spaces afforded by the Internet, for the greater benefit of consumers.
Thanks (Hyblis) for the informative comment. Codes of Ethics and Standards of Practice are developed by a wide variety of people who vary from being behaviorists to those who operate behaviors out of principles.
In the work I did on ethics and practice for a previous professional association, I was concerned about how the specifics can get so distorted in applying across the board to issues that are not related in principle to the other topic. In other words, the control factor you so insightfully call it, seems to be embedded in the assumptions being made within the ethics myopia that is rampant in our profession.
Unnecessary controls flood our profession so as we move global, this will be an uphill battle.
Norm Quantz
I’m not sure that ethics is really a control issue. Ethics in it’s purest
sense is about moral obligation and duty and these tend to be universal.
If one’s own personal morality is in contradiction to guidelines set out
by a professional association, then perhaps the practitioner needs to
examine their own motivations. It should matter not where they are
located and practice.
At some point, even with an international and global reach, our profession must adapt standards. Hypocrates has had it right for centuries in the medical field. Perhaps the simplest is “Do no harm”. Perhaps we in the paramedical fields need to align our various professional associations at least on a national level. This would facilitate cooperation internationally as the facing of therapy is changing.
Is the argument then for looser guidelines and ethics? What is the
accountability/personal responsibility framework? This would be a
dangerous precedent I believe- too many poorly trained “professionals” out
there. Ethical guidelines and jurisdictional oversight in fact protect
the knowledgeable, professional out there.
I appreciate your considered thoughts Paulo. Let me respond to your questions on ethics in this blog on jurisdiction because ethics affect why jurisdictional regulations and boundaries are established.
Re: looser guidelines and ethics – Not necessarily looser, but more like you mentioned about Hypocrites – I consider that to be the best essence of what ethics should be about – principled. But how do you address the incompetence of a therapist that, out of fear of most anything they “do nothing” in order to “do no harm”. I have had numerous clients that are quite angry with former therapists who have “done nothing”. My point is that our profession’s historical assumption that having codes of ethics will ensure proper treatment of clients is an attempt but not assurance. Historically, Codes of Ethics, because they were misinterpreted and misrepresented, were followed with Standards of Practice as a means of properly interpreting the codes. This has not been sufficient it seems so we are now into an era where we are seeing the development of Competency based criteria. This is now taking the lead as we try to regulate our profession and protect the public from harm.
As we move to national/global policies, it is time to reassess what we are trying to accomplish in regulations. The emphasis on law is not a sufficient substitute for personal character development. Maybe there is research out there that shows a correlation between professional character and ethical violating? Just thinking out loud! What do you think? My experience in investigating ethical complaints of colleagues has shown that when there are legitimate complaints, the therapists have being running their practice more as a function of being ‘perfunctory’ than with a ‘heart’ for the well being of their client. Or/Additionally, maybe what we should be focusing on is informing clients how to select their therapist which is best suited for them. What do you and others think?
Re: the accountability issue – it is surely important for professionals to have accountability in their practice. Better yet, on top of that, an inner accountability with a character trait of self evaluation, invitational-ongoing feedback from clients, and self correction to improve on serving clients.
Short blog posts have difficulty grappling with complex issues. So I hope that these are taken in context with the other contributions to the discussion.
Thanks for your input. I like the points you have made.
Norm Quantz