Selection of Models

The development of the Meta-code presented a number of challenges along the way, in addition to the determination of its content. Initially, there was concern about its relationship with the Carta Etica. This set out ethical principles but was considered to have insufficient detail for the present purpose. The relationship with national codes was recognized as sensi­tive. As a federation, EFPPA could not insist on the actions of national associations with respect to their codes; EFPPA could, however, require that as a condition of membership the code complied with its own requirements. This tension raised the question of specificity of content.

The АРА code, first approved in 1953, had become a model for other countries. Using this as our model may have saved a good deal of work. However, there were two con­cerns with this strategy in addition to those previously noted. First, the АРА code was itself under review. The original 1953 version had been amended over the years and at this time the 1992 edition was under development. This prag­matic concern however was secondary to a more fundamen­tal concern that EFPA should develop a European code of ethics not "borrow" one developed in another country, indeed another continent. Perhaps partly motivated by Euro-centrism, this position also recognized the substantial varia­tion within Europe as exemplified by the evidence from associations represented in the Task Force. The Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) code of ethics was devel­oped in 1986 and its companion manual of 1988, subse­quently revised in 1991 (Sinclair & Pettifor, 1992), was also admired. This publication not only comprised the CPA code but also an extensive set of vignettes and substan­tial bibliography and guidelines, providing support for psy­chologists beyond the code itself.

The Task Force decided to draw upon the extensive and valued work previously undertaken by the national associations together with that by the АРА and CPA. The meeting of October 23-24, 1993 in Paris considered the Carta Etica, CPA's principles, the draft Meta-code, and a proposal from Southern European associations. The lessons learned by other bodies were also noted. For example, a primary concern for the Task Force was to attempt to avoid such change as had occurred with the АРА code. This was important for an international body's Meta-code which would be used as the standard by various national associations over many years as new national codes were developed. However, the importance of a spec­ification of ethical principles as set out in the АРА and CPA codes was approved. The general structure was deter­mined to be a set of principles, each of which was elabo­rated by a set of specifications.

The determination of the appropriate number of princi­ples was also a matter of debate. The CPA had four, the АРА six in its 1992 code (currently five: АРА, 2010). Allan (2010) describes how the Australian Psychological Society's 2007 code was developed from eight principles which were then reduced to three general principles. The major hesita­tion for the Task Force was with the APA's principle of Social Responsibility that was judged to go beyond the prac­tice of psychology to social judgments, for example the clause "They (psychologists) are encouraged to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no personal advantage." After much debate the Task Force decided on the four principles that would determine the core of the EFPA Meta-code: Respect for a Person's Rights and Dignity, Competence, Responsibility, and Integrity.

Having determined the Principles and a Preamble, the subsequent meetings in Amsterdam and Ljubljana (1994) and Zurich (March 1995) were used to develop the Meta-code to provide the more detailed specification of the requirements for national associations' codes, organized to follow each of the principles. The Meta-code was written as a guide to associations that would then produce more spe­cific behavioral implications of each principle. These are comparable to standards of behavior in national codes, but are written in a more general form for the reason stated (see examples below).

The Task Force decided that the ethical principles should not be placed in a hierarchy, as was the case in some national codes (e.g., АРА) - an approach later adopted also by the Australian Psychological Society (Allan & Symonds, 2010). On the contrary the interdependence of principles was stressed. This decision was informed by research and led to the inclusion of a specific clause in the Meta-code on ethical dilemmas which had indicated that principles could be in conflict, so creating a dilemma (e.g., Lindsay & Clarkson, 1999; Lindsay & Colley, 1995). A common example is the conflict between maintaining confidentiality of a client's information and the prevention of harm to the client or a third party, which that information could prevent if confidentiality were to be breached; for example, the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California — see Bersoff (2003, pp. 165-171) for a discussion, and Rae, Sullivan, Razo, and Garcia de Alba (2009).

6