TPC-Journal-V2-Issue1

The Professional Counselor \Volume 2, Issue 1 27 choose to uphold the principle of beneficence in regards to client care with the opinion that a potentially inappropriate treatment would be less harmful than no treatment, or when there are no reasonably available referral options (Remley & Herlihy, 2009). Both of these options can be untenable when judging the value of a person’s mental stability and ability to function against an ethical code that does not take into account the realities of small community life. In that regard, each of these options serves to highlight the position that determinations of boundaries of competence in frontier areas need to include an awareness of the needs of the community. In areas where members of close-knit communities traditionally depend on each other in the face of adverse living conditions, and the problematic behavior of even a single person can disrupt a family and through that a community, it is imperative to be aware of the interdependence and needs of small communities. With this in mind, when a frontier counselor is faced with a client concern that they do not feel wholly qualified to treat, they may choose to work with the client knowing that referral services are too far removed or inaccessible and that professional action may be construed as a violation of competence on the part of the counselor, but also that working with the client may serve to maintain the client’s best functioning in the community, thus supporting the continued well-being of the community itself (Werth et al., 2010). In contrast, a counselor could deny services to a client based on the counselor’s perception of their own professional abilities in regards to a particular client concern. The counselor could then seek to augment the boundaries of competence through supervision, mentoring and continuing education, expanding understanding until more comfort working with a particular concern or population was achieved. This assumes, of course, that adequate supervision and continuing education opportunities are available and that the counselor is able to access these services. In this manner, the frontier counselor is in the same predicament as their clients with geographic location and distance determining availability of resources. While technologies (Internet, audio/visual conferencing, telephone) do create greater potential access to necessary resources, the reality of frontier life is that many areas do not have Internet or phone access, or have very limited access heavily dependent on weather conditions and other factors relating to location and available technical resources. While most licensing boards allow some continuing education units (CEU’s) to be obtained through distance means (Zur, 2006) and some allow distance supervision for licensure (McAdams & Wyatt, 2010), the actuality of frontier counseling frequently makes it difficult to readily obtain licensure CEU’s, timely mentoring, and collaborative resources when needed. Multiple Relationships and Conflicting Professional Roles “A dual relationship would be considered to exist when, in addition to the professional role and relationship, there exists a further meaningful relationship with clear role expectations and obligations, such as employer, friend, family member, or business partner” (Brownlee, 1996, p. 498). These dual and multiple relationships are the most pervasive ethical concern facing rural and frontier counselors and are the most complicated of all the ethical dilemmas encountered in daily professional practice (Helbok, 2003; McDermott, 2007; Scopelliti et al., 2004; Werth et al., 2010; Zur, 2006). Perceived problems with multiple relationships in counseling. The relationships themselves are, of course, not the problem. The ethical concerns begin to arise when the boundaries of a therapeutic relationship become unclear through multiple relationships to the extent that the potential of client dependency, feelings of entitlement to special favors, and financial, emotional, or sexual exploitation can more readily occur (Nickel, 2004). That is why the traditional view of managing multiple relationships has been to avoid them (Ebert, 1997; Faulkner & Faulkner, 1997; Stockman, 1990) and in general, the ethical codes of mental health professional organizations have discouraged multiple relationships in an effort to avoid exploiting the trust and dependency of clients (Erickson, 2001). In the American Counseling Association’s (ACA, 2005) ethics code, for example, counselors are encouraged to avoid all non-professional interactions or relationships with “clients, former clients, their romantic partners, or their family members…except when the interaction is potentially beneficial to the client” (A.5.c). If there is a potential benefit for a current or former client the counselor: must document in case records, prior to the interaction (when feasible), the rationale for such an interaction, the potential benefit, and anticipated consequences for the client or former client and other individuals significantly involved with the client or former client. (A.5.d.) This may be a reasonable course of action when the counselor has the justifiable belief that he or she can move around in an environment without the immediate concern of interacting with a current or former client (Schank & Skovholt,