Abstract.
An organization’s Code of Ethics lays down fundamental stipulations relevant to appropriate approaches, conduct of affairs, and acceptable operations within an organization. The American Association of Christian Counselors and the American Counseling Association have adopted their respective Codes of Ethics. Despite being distinct in approach and mission, their Codes exhibit similarities in aspects such as competence, inter-collegial relations, and mandated standards. All these serve to protect the welfare of clients in the ultimate analysis.
Code of Ethics Comparison and Contrast: AACC and ACA
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the Codes of Ethics established by the American Association of Christian Counselors[1] and the American Counseling Association,[2] focusing on areas of competence, colleague relationships, and community standards. Despite their differences in approach and goals, this paper aims to demonstrate that these two Codes of Ethics can exhibit similarities while maintaining their individual uniqueness.
Drawing Correspondences from Patent Differences
Firstly, it should be noted that the two counseling organizations differ significantly in their approaches to addressing the needs of their clients. AACC promises to offer or refer Christian counselors who have advanced skills and expertise informed by Christian beliefs and norms. In contrast, ACA does not subscribe to any religious leaning in its counseling programs. However, it is important to note that Christian counseling does not limit the competence of AACC to handle counseling sessions beyond select Christian clients. Despite a preponderance of Christian beliefs, AACC claims competence and readiness to express loving care” for practically any type of client (AACC Code of Ethics, 2004, p. 6). Similarly, ACA boasts a team of professionals who can “work in a variety of settings” and “serve in multiple capacities” (ACA Code of Ethics, 2005, p. 3). Like AACC, ACA strives to cater to the needs of clients from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds; dedicating effort towards understanding their differences.
That being said, it needs to be further mentioned that both counseling organizations have put a higher premium than most on maintaining a level of competence and expertise in their respective crafts. This can be seen in how, first, both AACC and ACA express commitment to upholding a considerable level of professional competence by making truthful claims about their defined sets of services and employing competent counselors with adequate educational backgrounds. Second, the two organizations see the crucial importance of acknowledging the occasional limits to their competence through: (1) not offering services beyond the boundaries set by their relative capacities; (2) employing and/or assigning counselors whose competence best addresses the specific needs of clients; and (3) encouraging their respective counselors to attend continuing study programs and keep themselves abreast of the latest scientific theories available to them (AACC, 2004, pp. 9-10; ACA, 2005, p. 9).
AACC moreover sets that its members cannot advise against professional or medical treatment as a way to respect the competence of those who may be simultaneously involved with clients’ well-being. By contrast, ACA places much emphasis on the need for continued monitoring of progress so as to evaluate not only the efficiency of counselors but also counseling therapy sessions.
In the area of colleague relationships, there are palpable differences and notable similarities between the Codes of AACC and ACA. For instance, the scope of inter-collegial relationships differs significantly between the two organizations. AACC takes into careful consideration the context of the church in its definition of existing colleague relationships. This means that Christian counselors are required to respect working boundaries not only with their immediate colleagues within the organization but also with the larger Christian community involved in client welfare, such as church ministers, counselors, and pastors. In contrast, ACA does not define its inter-collegial relations with a larger community or church.” Instead, ACA maintains that collegial relationships consist of interactions with members from either the same organization or interdisciplinary teams. However, like AACC, ACA believes that maintaining a respectable relationship among colleagues is crucial because it can influence service quality provided to clients (ACA 2005 p.11).
Both Codes of Ethics recognize the importance of maintaining a professional atmosphere, and both AACC and ACA emphasize the need to adhere to certain measures to ensure that collegial relationships within and outside the organization are guided by their respective Codes of Ethics. Specifically, both organizations place great emphasis on observing absolute confidentiality in inter-collegial interactions. ACA mandates that counselors observe the parameters of confidentiality” unless there are “extraordinary circumstances” that require appropriate divulging of information for client welfare, particularly in extreme situations (ACA, 2005, p. 11). Similarly, AACC prohibits counselors from soliciting or offering information to colleagues under normal circumstances unless clients permit it or a crisis is imminent (AACC, 2004, p. 16).
Lastly, it may also help to note that the AACC and ACA have differing notions of community standards implemented within their respective frames. For instance, ACA seeks to promote a culture of professionalism for the entire community to subscribe to. In other words, all members of the ACA community agree to abide by rules prohibiting untoward behaviors that may compromise the promotion of clients’ welfare in order to maintain an atmosphere of professionalism. Such instances may include engaging in romantic/sexual or business relationships with clients or former clients, as well as imposing personal opinions inconsistent with the organization’s goals (ACA, 2005, p. 5).
On the other hand, AACC implements explicitly Christian standards for its community. Specifically, counselors are required not to consent to any decision involving matters that run contrary to Christian teachings in order to promote a Christian culture within the organization. These matters include but are not limited to abortion, divorce, pre-marital or extra-marital relations, homosexual or transgender activities and euthanasia/assisted suicide (AACC 2004 pp.6-7).
Conclusion.
This paper concludes by affirming the thesis statement that, despite patent differences, the Codes of Ethics stipulated and implemented by AACC and ACA manifest areas of correspondence. Of chief importance is that both organizations seek to promote the welfare of their clients, albeit with different approaches. The discussions reveal that both AACC and ACA express a commitment to upholding professionalism in their fields while promising to observe confidentiality and prudence in their inter-collegial interactions. In conclusion, this paper suggests that it is reasonable to assume that clients directly benefit from the benevolent stipulations laid out in both Codes of Ethics.
References
The American Association of Christian Counselors published the AACC Code of Ethics in 2004. The code can be accessed by visiting http://www.aacc.net. The website was last retrieved on September 18, 2008.
The American Counseling Association (ACA) has established a Code of Ethics in 2005. The code can be accessed by visiting http://www.counseling.org. The website provides the complete and official version of the code. This information was retrieved on September 18, 2008.
Hereinafter, AACC will be referred to simply as AACC.
Hereinafter, ACA will be referred to simply as [2].
