groups_17014112The purpose of this paper is to hash out and evaluate what ethical requirements that are electric current "hot topics" therapists must employ when working in group and individual settings, respectively. At that place are subtle differences in ethical considerations but at the same time, there are many similarities. For the purpose, these ethical considerations have been narrowed down to disharmonize of interest (dual roles), when to refer clients to group or individual counseling or even to another more qualified therapist and when clients demand to share and when they don't. In improver, the word of what a therapist must share virtually the group; what the group is about, what rules are necessary for a successful outcome and the rational of the grouping – why they are there.

Ethical considerations in grouping counseling

            Ethics are parameters past which professionals in dissimilar fields use (Jacobs, Masson, Harvill, & Schimmel, 2012). They are, in a sense, the rules that professionals follow to exist fair to their clients, their profession and to themselves. While not all upstanding considerations are the same for every profession, in that location are similarities. This also holds true for different situations in counseling. The scope of this paper is to discuss the "hot topics" of upstanding considerations for group therapy and individual therapy; and to compare them accordingly. As well, to respond why a therapist may cull individual counseling over group therapy or vice versa.

'Hot topics' in group ideals

                  There are many ethical considerations for therapists who choose to counsel on an individual and group basis. For this context all the same, the focus is on the disharmonize of interest, when to refer clients on to other professionals or from individual counseling to group counseling and whether forcing clients to share their deepest, darkest sorrows and secrets are upstanding.

Conflict of interest

A disharmonize of involvement in counseling tin can range from too much therapist cocky-disclosure to having dual relationships, or relationships with clients exterior of the therapy sessions (Jacobs, et al., 2012). These ethical dilemmas may be seemingly innocent enough and may, in some cases exist unavoidable (i.e. in rural communities where there are non many therapists) (Gonyeah, Wright & Earl-Kulkosky, 2014; Gottlieb, 1993) but when the therapist and client are in a state of affairs where knowing each others lives outside of the role setting, certain rules and ethical considerations come into play. Attending functions together may require a lot of idea on both sides to determine the safety of both the customer and therapist. In a group therapy setting, the stakes for safe and protection are even higher considering of the many lives and families involved (Burian & O'Connor Slimp, 2000).

Referring clients

Therapists must be aware and mindful of when a client needs to motility on to other more qualified therapists or from an individual setting to a group session. Knowing the time to move on is the responsibility of the therapist as is knowing when they are non qualified to practise their customer justice with their own limitations (Jacobs, et al., 2012). This is when the therapist should refer the client to a more qualified therapist who has the experience required to further aid the customer. With groups, it is the therapist'south job to know when being in a group setting is more benign and will challenge the customer to move on in their recovery. If the client within a grouping setting is struggling in the group and can't seem to connect, it is the job of the therapist to refer them back to individual counseling or a group setting that is more suited to the clients issues.

Clients and sharing

Letting clients know that they are free to share whatever they'd like, every bit long as it is relevant to the topic of the group (i.e. substance abuse, child corruption, acrimony management, etc.) is important to establish early on (Corey, Schneider-Corey, & Haynes, 2014). Letting the client know that they exercise not have to share annihilation that they are uncomfortable with is besides important. For some clients, it may accept more than fourth dimension to warm up and get comfortable but almost importantly, trusting of the group enough to share what they are going through or accept experienced and want to work on or heal is vital.

Therapists, according to Hartman & Zimberoff (2012), should as well disclose their experience and training on a honest level; to falsify information is an ethical infraction. Information technology is also the therapist's job to establish to their client(s) that they are trained for this blazon of therapy, and that they are competent to lead the group (or unmarried individual) effectively (Scher & Kozlowska, 2012).

Unique issues in group therapy

           There are several ethical standards that apply to both group and private therapy. In looking at the list of ethical considerations in Groups in action: Evolution and challenges (Corey et al., 2014), there were many that applied to both types of therapy in one way or another. In instance, the screening of clients, to ensure that they were in the right group for the topics being discussed is important in group therapy but by the same token, screening clients to ensure that they and their issues are a expert fit for the therapist and their level of expertise; and feel with those issues is important. Another similarity is that of clear roles. What the roles of the clients are in direct correlation with the roles of the therapist and what the group's rational and purpose is.

Therapist roles and client roles

Therapists must know their business. They must spend time keeping up their ain educational activity and constantly evolving into better therapists and including the latest data into their noesis base. They must as well learn new techniques and theories that will aid them in understanding their clients needs, the needs of the grouping as a whole and what will work in advancing the healing process of their clients (Brabender, 2006). They must also believe in their clients and that alter is possible (Stalker, Horton & Cait, 2012). Therapists must besides know the cultural and religious variables of their clients and know how those variables will bear upon each client within the group setting (Cornish, Wade, Tucker & Mail, 2014; Henrikson, Polonyi, Bornsheuer-Boswell, Greger & Watts, 2015; Ibrahim & Dykeman, 2012). Therapists must also know how to prove empathy for their clients and while not making the client feel awkward, the therapist must give emotional support throughout the group experience; this is specially true of immature adolescents (Bruns & Frewer, 2011; Yamuna, 2013; Scher & Kozlowska, 2012).

A unique dynamic here is co-leadership of a grouping or "cotherapy" where two therapists share the job of co-leading a group. A report on this dynamic discovered that in order for co-leading to be effective and succeed, a healthy working relationship betwixt the therapists must exist as well as the 'sibling' dynamic in the therapist's personal life (Shapiro & Ginzberg, 2001).

Clients must come to a place in which they want to change for the meliorate (Stalker, et. al., 2015). Clients must also come up to a identify where they become honest with themselves, their part in their issues and problems besides as the function that others played in those problems. They need to understand that therapy is hard work that can event in a painful but hopefully, a cathartic and healing journey (Jacobs, et al., 2012). The customer has a responsibility to proceed working toward healing or the process upshot volition be express (Corey, et al., 2014).

Group rational and purpose

Establishing the group's purpose and why the clients are there is vitally of import to the success of the grouping. This information gives the grouping a articulate direction and noesis of what to expect throughout the process and what to retrieve about bringing to the table as others talk about their own experiences and emotions. When the group knows the parameters and begins to share with one some other, they often can place with more than one person (i.e. the therapist) (Forsyth, 2014). In that location are more perspectives with a collective life experience to draw from.

Therapists must also accept a clear plan for the group (Vinella, 2013). Corey, Corey and Haynes (2014) reiterate this need of a programme for a successful grouping. Knowing what is needed to be achieved on the first twenty-four hours to the last day (assuming in that location is an stop) just as well what events volition happen from the showtime to the finish of the group session.

Aversions to grouping therapy

Some clients may come into the session already upset and uptight over having to 'exist in that location.' This is more likely the instance with court-mandated therapy where clients have no choice but to attend (i.due east. drug and alcohol counseling, anger management, parenting classes, etc.). Some clients may have preconceived notions of what grouping therapy is all nearly and not desire to open up out of embarrassment, fright of judgment, ridicule, bias, rejection and speaking in a group forum rather than one on one (Jacobs et al., 2012). The lack of privacy in a grouping setting may as well scare clients into silence. This is where the therapist needs to establish from the beginning that confidentiality is vital to the group and the more others open up and share, the more than likely the fearful client volition also relax and begin to share and bring together in the conversations and dialogs (Barros-Bailey & Saunders, 2010; Hartman & Zimberoff, 2012). Clients may have had bad experiences in the past with other therapy programs and so knowing well-nigh these experiences and what the client expects to gain or lose in a group session or even an individual setting is important to furthering their growth (Garzon, Worthington & Tan, 2009).

Clients may not take an aversion as such, but come up in with preconceived notions of their own growth or lack thereof. They come up in to the group thinking they are fine and don't need aid. A student participant in a study on religious and spiritual counseling training had this to say almost their self:

"My training definitely helped me explore and shape my own

beliefs and understanding. I went in to the programme thinking

I was pretty well established but to detect out that I needed to

continue evaluating and establishing my beliefs and values.

It was a humbling, yet highly beneficial experience to have

my foundation shook and [to] take to really scrutinize why

I believed what I did"

(Henrikson, Polonyi, Bornsheuer-Boswell, Greger & Watts, 2015, para. 22).

Client self-disclosure

This was touched on in and earlier segment; yet, clients need to be enlightened that sharing identifying information well-nigh others (friends, family, people they accept problems with) and sensitive information, may not exist wise in a group setting. While confidentiality is a requirement, taking a risk could be detrimental to the client, the group besides as the therapist.

Focus-GroupWhen therapists may reconsider

In some cases, therapists may reconsider their option to ship a client to group therapy or back to individual therapy. Some of the reasons for this change tin be that the customer is ready to motion forrard into group therapy where they tin can exist stimulated even more than to grow, flourish, and where they can possibly place with others who may have like problems to their own. The therapist may cull to send the client into supportive or problem solving therapy (Alexopoulos, Raue, & Areán, 2003).

If the client continues to struggle with feelings of fear, anxiety, and rejection or needs more privacy regarding their bug, the therapist may return them to an individual setting. The client's safety is the about of import thing to consider when making this decision.

When clients accept more than one result going on (dual diagnosis) a group therapy session may benefit one area, but not the other. In the example of mental illness, substance abuse ofttimes follows. Clients with mental illness may not have the ability to work through things in a group setting regarding that side of their illness; however, for their substance abuse problems, group therapy may exist valuable (Drake, Richards, Essock, Shaner, Carey, Minkoff & Clark, 2001; Bolier, Haverman, Westerhof, Riper, Smit & Bohlmeijer, 2013). In this case, the client may be in both types of counseling simultaneously.

 Conclusion

When conducting group and individual counseling, there are many similarities regarding the upstanding requirements and practices of therapy. In that location are also a handful of differences or different ways of approaching the same upstanding standard. Therapists must testify care in conflict of interest, dual human relationship roles fifty-fifty in rural communities, they must refer clients on to either other groups or individual therapists when the therapy isn't working or they have arrived at their level of expertise. These are "hot topics" in ethical considerations but there are many more that warrant one's attention in a group and individual setting. Clients must exist told that they do not have to share things that they practice not experience comfortable sharing or are not set up to share and therapists must constitute early on, the scope of the group setting. What they are to discuss, what rules (if any) are to be followed and what the groups mission is.

References

Alexopoulos, G. S., Raue, P., & Areán, P. (2003). Problem-solving therapy versus supportive therapy in geriatric major depression with executive dysfunction. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, xi(1), 46-52. doi:10.1097/00019442-200301000-00007

Barros-Bailey, Chiliad., & Saunders, J. L. (2010). Ethics and the use of engineering science in rehabilitation counseling. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 53(iv), 255-259. doi:10.1177/0034355210368867

Brabender, V. (2006). The upstanding group psychotherapist. International Journal of Grouping Psychotherapy, 56(4), 395-414. doi:x.1521/ijgp.2006.56.iv.395

Bolier, 50., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, Eastward. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13, 119. doi:x.1186/1471-2458-13-119

Bruns, F. & Frewer, A. (2011). Ethics consultation and empathy. HEC Forum, 23(4), 247. doi:ten.1007/s10730-011-9164-7

Burian, B. One thousand., & O'Connor Slimp, A. (2000). Social dual-role relationships during internship: A controlling model. Professional Psychology: Enquiry and Practice, 31(3), 332-338. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.31.3.332

Corey, G., Schneider-Corey, M., & Haynes, R. (2014). Groups in action: Evolution and challenges (2cd ed.). Belmont, Ca: Brooks/Cole.

Cornish, M. A., Wade, Northward. G., Tucker, J. R., & Post, B. C. (2014). When organized religion enters the counseling grouping: Multiculturalism, group processes, and social justice. The Counseling Psychologist, 42(five), 578-600. doi:x.1177/0011000014527001

Drake, R. Due east., Rickards, 50., Essock, S. M., Shaner, A., Carey, Thousand. B., Minkoff, K., & Clark, R. Due east. (2001). Implementing dual diagnosis services for clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 52(4), 469-476. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.52.4.469

Forsyth, D. R. (2014). Goup Dynamics (6th ed.). [Kindle]. Retrieved from http://www.Bookshelf.com

Garzon, F., Worthington, East. L. Jr., & Tan, S. (2009). Lay Christian counseling and customer expectations for integration in therapy. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 28(2), 113.

Gonyea, J. L. J., Wright, D. Westward., & Earl‐Kulkosky, T. (2014). Navigating dual relationships in rural communities. Journal of Marriage and Family unit Therapy, xl(ane), 125-136. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00335.x

Gottlieb, M. C. (1993). Avoiding exploitive dual relationships: A decision-making model. Psychotherapy (Chicago, Sick.), xxx(i), 41-48. doi:ten.1037/0033-3204.30.one.41

Hartman, D., & Zimberoff, D. (2012). Ethics in eye-centered therapies. Journal of Heart Centered Therapies, xv(1), three.

Henriksen, R. C., Polonyi, M. A., Bornsheuer‐Boswell, J. Northward., Greger, R. G., & Watts, R. E. (2015). Counseling students' perceptions of Religious/Spiritual counseling training: A qualitative written report. Periodical of Counseling & Development, 93(one), 59-69. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00181.x

Ibrahim, F. A., & Dykeman, C. (2011). Counseling Muslim Americans: Cultural and spiritual assessments. Periodical of Counseling & Development, 89(4), 387-396. doi:ten.1002/j.1556-6676.2011.tb02835.x

Jacobs, E. Due east., Masson, R. L., Harvill, R. 50., & Schimmel, C. J. (2012). Group Counseling: Strategies and Skills (7th ed.). [Kindle]. Retrieved from http://www.Bookshelf.com

Romaioli, D., & Faccio, E. (2012). When therapists do non know what to practise: informal types of eclecticism in psychotherapy. Res. Psychother. Psychopathol. Procedure Effect, 15, 10-21.

Scher, S., & Koziowska, K. (2012). Thinking, doing, and the Ethics of Family Therapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 40(2), 97-114. http://dx.doi.org/ten.1080/01926187.2011.633851

Shapiro, E. L., & Ginzberg, R. (2001). The persistently neglected sibling relationship and its applicability to grouping therapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 51(3), 327-341. doi:10.1521/ijgp.51.3.327.49883

Stalker, C. A., Horton, S., & Cait, C. (2012). Unmarried-session therapy in walk-in counseling clinic: A pilot study. Periodical of Systemic Therapies, 31(1), 38-52.

Vinella, P. (2013). Transactional analysis counseling groups: Theory, practice, and how they differ from other TA groups. Transactional Assay Journal, 43(one), 68-79. doi:10.1177/0362153713486111

Yamuna, S. (2013). Counseling adolescents. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 80(11), 949-958. doi:10.1007/s12098-013-1104-x