Psychologists do not base their assessment or intervention decisions or recommendations on data or test results that are outdated for the current purpose.
This statement makes me question the use of tools like voice stress, polygraph tests and other assessments that are commonly used in criminal cases but have been questioned for their accuracy. Would tests such as these be allowed in a psychological study or would they be deemed unethical.
Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.
I am curious how this compares the the principle of do no harm and what makes this standard a more rigid regulation.
Psychologists do not deny persons employment, advancement, admissions to academic or other programs, tenure, or promotion, based solely upon their having made or their being the subject of an ethics complaint. This does not preclude taking action based upon the outcome of such proceedings or considering other appropriate information.
I find it interesting that one of the ethical standards does not allow a previous infraction to be used against them
do no harm
Interesting that do no harm is not one of the standards but rather a principle.
The Ethics Code is not intended to be a basis of civil liability. Whether a psychologist has violated the Ethics Code standards does not by itself determine whether the psychologist is legally liable in a court action, whether a contract is enforceable, or whether other legal consequences occur.
This is key: can be charged criminally or civilly for a practice even if it does not break one of these specific standards. These standards are not a legally binding set, rather one specific to the APA.
Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an Ethical Standard is not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct.
I think this is an important statement because if someone has become a "member" than they are expected to familiarize themselves with these standards.
The fact that a given conduct is not specifically addressed by an Ethical Standard does not mean that it is necessarily either ethical or unethical
Is this an indication that more can be added to this document, almost akin to the constitution? And how should a situation that is not covered by these standards then be evaluated for ethical practices?