Ethics Code Task Force, 2020, July 31). Additional principles seem to reflect attempts to incorporate evolving awareness of human rights and social responsibility. The aspirational guiding principles include beneficence and nonmaleficence, human and civil rights, integrity, interrelatedness of people, systems and the environment, professionalism and responsibility, respect for the welfare of persons and peoples, scientific mindedness, and social justice.
CANADIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION’S APPROACH TO AN ETHICS CODE
The CPA was organized in 1939, incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act in 1950, and received its Certificate of Continuance under Canada’s Not-for-profit Corporations Act in 2013. In the mid-twentieth century, Canada was a geographically large country with relatively few psychologists. Because it would have been hard to bring these psychologists together to create an ethics code, “the Canadian Psychological Association … decided to adopt the 1959 … APA code for a three-year trial. This was followed by adoptions (with minor wording changes) of the 1963 and 1977 APA revised codes” (Sinclair & Pettifor, 2001, p. i).
Discontent with the APA code and the perception that it was not a good fit for Canadian psychologists led the CPA to create its own code. Prior to developing its own code, there was evidence of periodic discontent by CPA members with the APA code. For example, in a 1976 document titled “Alternative Strategies for Revising CPA’s Code of Ethics,” the statement was made that the 10 APA ethical principles were “clearly designed for the current American social and moral climate and geared to American traditions and law.” However, it was not until the 1977 revision of the APA code that the discontent became serious.
Of particular concern was the fact that, in response to US court applications of antitrust law to professional activities, the APA had removed some of its restrictions on advertising. Many Canadian psychologists believed such application of antitrust laws ran the risk of changing the nature of the professional relationship from a primarily fiduciary contract to a commercial one (Sinclair et al., 1996, p. 7).
To create an ethics code, CPA began with a critical analysis of the international and interdisciplinary literature to determine the primary purposes of codes of ethics and their perceived strengths and weaknesses. This was followed by sending out 37 ethical dilemmas to psychologists who were asked how they would act in these situations and, equally important, to describe their reasoning (Sinclair et al., 1987). The responses yielded four basic ethical principles (CPA, 1986):
1 Respect for the Dignity of Persons
2 Responsible Caring
3 Integrity in Relationships
4 Responsibility to Society
The original CPA ethics code opened with a Preamble, which included a model of ethical decision-making in which the four ethical principles are to be considered and balanced. The Preamble was followed by four sections. Each section included an ethical principle, identified the values that give definition to the ethical principle, and list the standards that illustrate the application of the principle to the activities of psychologists.
Although the code was revised in 1991 and 2000, its original structure and emphases on the four ethical principles and ethical decision-making remains (Sinclair, 1998, 2011).
The third revision of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (CPA, 2017a) maintains the structure and emphases of previous editions of the Code, but with clarification, updates, and additions related primarily to the following themes:
1 The role of “the personal” (e.g., virtue, character, self-knowledge) in ethical decision-making
2 Additional examples on the application of the principles and values to the use of technologies
3 Additional attention to collaborative/interdisciplinary practice
4 More attention to the impact of diversity and globalization on both society and psychology
ADJUDICATION OF ETHICS COMPLAINTS FOR CPA AND APA
In 1985, the CPA Board approved a framework for re-directing to a regulatory body any complaint against a CPA member who is registered with that regulatory body. Although CPA would review the outcome of adjudication of the complaint, this review is to determine whether the individual’s CPA membership should be terminated or whether any conditions should be placed on the membership. The complaint is not re-adjudicated. This practice has remained in effect to the present. However, CPA does accept and adjudicate complaints about CPA members who are not registered, as well as complaints that regulatory bodies believe do not come under their jurisdiction.
In 2019, the APA issued the following statement:
Complaints Regarding APA Members
APA has made changes to its adjudication program to better serve individuals who believe they have been harmed by a psychologist. Our focus now will be on providing information on other potential avenues for resolution that have a greater ability to take a desired action against an unethical psychologist. We only accept complaints against an APA member psychologist if there is no alternative forum to hear the complaint. If another forum takes an action against the member, the APA can review the matter at that time.
Is the Psychologist You Would Like to Complain About Licensed?
If a state psychology licensing board has jurisdiction, we will not accept a complaint against them. (In the event that the licensing board makes a significant finding against the member psychologist, we will be informed and will review the behavior under a different process).
If you have a complaint against a psychologist, you should contact your local, state, provincial, or territorial psychology licensing board to determine if the psychologist is licensed and obtain information on filing a complaint with that licensing board. These state regulatory agencies control the ability of a psychologist to practice and are separate entities from APA. A complete list can be found at The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards.
There also may be other avenues for you to consider, even if the psychologist is not licensed. If you are a student wishing to complain about a faculty member, you should explore your school’s grievance procedures. Similarly, faculty members can explore their institution’s faculty grievance procedures. If the matter involves child custody issues, another avenue beyond filing with the licensing board would be to work with your lawyer to present your concerns to the judge.
Why Is This the Focus?
As a membership organization, APA cannot revoke a psychologist’s license or restrict a psychologist from practicing. We cannot obtain a monetary award for you or require that a psychologist do something you request. As with most membership-based organizations, the most serious action that APA can take is expelling the member from the association with notifications. We also do not have powers of investigation that governmental bodies and others possess. In most situations, there is a licensing board or other body that can review your complaint in greater depth and provide you greater relief for unethical behavior.
If you would like to receive additional assistance in identifying another forum better suited to hear your complaint, please contact us. In the event you have a record of a significant finding against a member by a forum other than a licensing board, you may contact us to give us that information (APA, 2019a, para. 1–6).
As emphasized in Chapter 1
