The Meta-Code 1995The final version of the Meta-code comprised: (1) Preamble, (2) Four Principles, and (3) The Content. The Preamble comprised a brief introduction which included the following statement of purpose: "EFPPA provides the following guidance for the content of the Ethical Codes of its member Associations. An Association's ethical code should cover all aspects of the professional behaviour of its members." This clarified that the Meta-code was not a code for psychologists but rather the template for the ethical codes of associations, which were for psychologists. The Principles were as follows: 2.1 Respect for a Person s Rights and Dignity Psychologists accord appropriate respect to and promote the development of the fundamental rights, dignity and worth of all people. They respect the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination and autonomy, consistent with the psychologist's other professional obligations and with the law. 2.2 Competence Psychologists strive to ensure and maintain high standards of competence in their work. They recognise the boundaries of their particular competencies and the limitations of their expertise. They provide only those services and use only those techniques for which they are qualified by education, training or experience. 2.3 Responsibility Psychologists are aware of the professional and scientific responsibilities to their clients, to the community, and to the society in which they work and live. Psychologists avoid doing harm and are responsible for their own actions, and assure themselves, as far as possible, that their services are not misused. 2.4 Integrity Psychologists seek to promote integrity in the science, teaching and practice of psychology. In these activities psychologists are honest, fair and respectful of others. They attempt to clarify for relevant parties the roles they are performing and to function appropriately in accordance with those roles. The Content began with an explication of three main issues. Firstly, the definition of client was provided: "In the following Meta-Code the term "client" refers to any person, patients, persons in interdependence or organisations with whom psychologists have a professional relationship, including indirect relationships." This was followed by four specifications regarding professional relationships that national associations' codes should address. These stressed that there was always a power relationship in any professional relationship involving a psychologist, that the psychologist's responsibility was a function of the degree of inequality, and that the psychologist had the responsibility of addressing this: Professional psychologists' ethical codes must take the following into account: • Psychologists' professional behaviour must be considered within a professional role, characterised by the professional relationship. • Inequalities of knowledge and power always influence psychologists' professional relationships with clients and colleagues. • The larger the inequality in the professional relationship and the greater the dependency of clients, the heavier is the responsibility of the professional psychologist. • The responsibilities of psychologists must be considered within the context of the stage of the professional relationship. Third, it was stressed that the principles were interdependent, not in a hierarchical relationship, and a brief comment was included that ethical decision-making "will require reflection and often dialogue with clients and colleagues, weighing different ethical principles. Making decisions and taking actions are necessary even if there are still conflicting issues." Finally, the principles were each amplified and exemplified by specifications. These were not standards of behavior but statements of the issues to address in national codes following the implications of each ethical principle. An example has been provided above with respect to relationships and addressing conflicts of interest and avoiding exploitation. The Meta-code was confirmed by the Task Force at its meeting in Zurich March 18-19, 1995. It was debated and approved by the General Assembly in Athens July 1-2, 1995.
8 The Revision of the Meta-Code (2005) Following its approval, national associations were required to ensure that their codes were compliant and not in conflict with the Meta-code. The Task Force was re-formed as a SCE and developed guidance and engaged in dissemination (see below). It became clear that the Meta-code was indeed being used by national associations as intended, even by those with well-established codes such as the BPS that completely changed its Code of Conduct (BPS, 1985) into a style based very much on the Meta-code's structure as well as content (BPS, 2009 for the most recent edition). Nevertheless, the SCE was aware of the dangers of assuming that codes necessarily remained fit for purpose over time: the АРА has amended its code several times since 1953. Consequently, a review was undertaken by the SCE. This comprised an in-depth reflection on the 1995 Meta-code by the committee, supported by a survey of associations and invited symposia in Prague (March 2003 and October 2004) for the committee and other representatives from national associations. These symposia provided an opportunity to review it in depth in the light of experience across Europe, including consideration of ethical issues that appeared not to be addressed by the Meta-code. These SCE initiatives were supplemented by a series of contributions to the European Meetings of Ethics in Psychology held in Lisbon and the biennial European Congresses of Psychology, where papers provided opportunities to test out the Meta-code's fitness for purpose and need for amendment of the original and later of the revised Meta-code (e.g., Lindsay, 1998, 2006). In the event, those initiatives suggested that the Meta-code was highly resistant and only a small number of changes were proposed, and accepted, by the 2005 General Assembly of EFPA in Granada, Spain (EFPA, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). The changes included a reference to the use of mediation as well as corrective and disciplinary processes in the investigation and actions taken in response to alleged unethical practice. Another was a firming up of the specification of self-determination (3.1.4i) to read (italics indicate the changes): "Maximisation of the autonomy of and self-determination by a client, including the general right to engage in and to end the professional relationship with a psychologist while recognising the need to balance autonomy with dependency and collective actions." 9 A new specification (3.2.3 iii) was added to the Limits of Procedures clause to take account of the need to develop new practices: during this period, evidence would be developing and so practice cannot be based entirely on a strong, existing evidence base.. "Obligation to balance the need for caution when using new methods with recognition that new areas of practice and methods will continue to emerge and that this is a positive development." The responsibilities of psychologists were also spelled out further in a new clause (3.3.Iii) under General Responsibility: "Not to bring the profession into disrepute." Finally, a new clause 3.3.3ii was added to increase clarity regarding the Avoidance of harm. This recognized that there were circumstances when a psychologist may take actions in the absence of consent by a client. The specification stressed the increased responsibility on the psychologist in such circumstances: "Recognition of the need for particular care to be taken when undertaking research or making professional judgements of persons who have not given consent." It is interesting to compare these limited amendments with the experience of the АРА whose code has changed substantially over successive editions. For example, the six principles of the 1992 code changed to five for the 2002 version with only two remaining the same as topics: integrity and respect for people's rights and dignity. Even here there were changes to wording. By the time of the Oslo EFPA General Assembly in 2009 the number of national associations with ethical codes known to be fully compliant with the Meta-code had risen to 11: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Nordic countries, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK (Lindsay, 2009a, 2009b). Four were not yet fully compliant: Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Russia. At that time no decision had been made for Cyprus, France, and the Netherlands, as no English translations were available. Other associations had not yet submitted the codes for review. In summary, therefore, one-third of EFPA's national associations were fully compliant: the next task was to ensure full compliance by those remaining. 10
|
