MC-8 Law, Ethics, & Professional Practice
Summative Assessment Example: Ethical Decision-Making Model Assignment
Assignment Instructions
Students will read an assigned ethical case study and write 1-3 paragraphs describing their approach to the ethical dilemma for each of the 8 skills/steps of the ethical decision-making model. See the grading rubric for guidance on composition. When completing the assignment, students should:
- Cite resources from the professional literature in text when needed
- Provide a reference page at end of paper
- Use the rubric to conduct a self-assessment of their work and return the paper and self-assessment to the instructor
Instructions for the consultation portion:
- When possible, seek the advice of a practicing mental health practitioner by describing the case and asking specific questions relevant to case exploration.
- Avoid asking AI bots. It is permissible to compare a human response to an AI response to your questions.
- Clearly delineate between the two types of consultation and add own summary to the side-by-side comparison.
Guidance for Instructor
The rubric may be adapted to fit a different ethical decision-making model such as APA or NASW. It is helpful to use the model and rubric for a large group activity first to help prepare students for the individual activity related to the summative assessment. An instructor may choose any ethical dilemma to apply to the assignment. It may be useful to provide the student with an option between 2-3 case studies highlighting different delivery systems. The instructions allow for consultation and comparison of human and AI responses. This step is optional and may be helpful in developing a critical lens of AI responses to ethical dilemmas. Professionals are already using AI to generate answers to questions, so it makes sense to incorporate it into assignments when appropriate.
Grading Rubric
| Skill being assessed | Criteria | Score | Comments | |||
| 1 Needs Work | 2 Beginning | 3 Developing Proficiency | 4 Proficient (for a BHSS student) | |||
| Identify Problem or Dilemma | Missed primary problem of case study | Some understanding of problem(s). Description is missing more than one key point to case study | Adequate understanding of problem(s) Description of problem is missing a key point relevant to case study | – Thorough understanding of problem(s) in case study – Explanation includes deductive reasoning | ||
| Identify Potential Issues Involved | Did not elaborate on issues related to case study | Less than satisfactory review of issues related to case study with more than two important points missing | Satisfactory review of issues related to case study Missing no more than one important point of concern | Competent review of issues that generated further understanding of case dilemma | ||
| Identify relevant ethical codes from a selected professional association code of ethics | Did not identify relevant codes | Missing more than two highly relevant ethical standards. | Identified relevant ethical codes while missing no more than two highly relevant standards | Identified highly relevant ethical codes impacting case study | ||
| Identify the most salient laws and regulations for the case. | Did not identify relevant laws or regulations to case when applicable | Missing more than two laws or regulations that impact case | Identified relevant laws and regulations while missing no more than two that impact case and decision making | Listed RCWs, WACs, or federal laws most relevant to case study with precision | ||
| Obtain consultation from someone working in the field of mental or behavioral health. | Did not identify resources for consultation or explain relevance | Sources for consultation are loosely connected to case and lack significance | Identified two sources to consult for case study and described significance of the sources | Identified three or more sources for consultation to obtain information and how the resources were significant | ||
| List possible courses of action. | Did not identify probable courses of action | Identified one course of action with minimal options to explore alternatives | Identified two probable courses of action connected to information from steps 1-5 | Identified three or more probable courses of action informed by information gathered in steps 1-5 | ||
| Enumerate consequences of the most likely courses of action selected. | Did not identify potential consequences | Consequences to action are not discussed in detail | Identified two consequences to probable courses of action | Identified three or more consequences to probable courses of action that demonstrate understanding of problem | ||
| State rationale for decision and plans for follow up. | Course of action is not discussed | Course of action is slightly supported by skills 1-7 | Course of action is partially supported by skills 1-7 | Course of action is fully rooted in rationale developed in skills 1-7 | ||
Sample Case Study:
Case of the Misguided Property Manager
The client was undergoing bankruptcy proceedings due to her compulsive spending habits and, after five years of marriage, her husband filed for divorce. Both the bankruptcy and divorce proceedings increased the client’s anxiety and depression causing her to become emotionally detached and withdrawn. The client sought counseling for her anxiety and depression.
Prior to her divorce, the client and her husband had attended a few counseling sessions with their church minister. When the client’s husband filed for divorce and refused to continue the counseling sessions, the minister encouraged the client to see a BHSS. The minister referred the client to a fellow church member who was a behavioral health support specialist working under supervision for local clinic and, soon thereafter, the client scheduled an appointment with the BHSS. The client and the BHSS attended the same church and had mutual friends. Although they had participated in the same church functions, they did not have any relationship prior to the client’s first session with the BHSS.
During the first few sessions, the focus of the therapy was on the client’s emotional well-being and coping with her divorce. The client disclosed that her spending habits were the main cause of her divorce. She reported that, prior to their marriage, her now ex-husband had paid $75,000 to settle her credit card debit. Prior to the husband filing for divorce, she was again in debt for a similar amount. She stated that she was too embarrassed to tell the church minister about her debt and forbid her now ex-husband from discussing it with anyone from the church.
After the initial sessions, the client’s focus was on her “housing situation.” She explained that she and her ex-husband had moved to the area for his job. When the ex-husband filed for divorce, he accepted a position overseas. The client reported that she was facing eviction from her home due to her inability to pay the monthly mortgage and had been unable to find affordable housing. Over the next few sessions, the BHSS believed that the client’s depression was worsening and became concerned that the client would become homeless. The BHSS approached the minister about the possibility of the church providing some type of financial support to the client to ensure that she would not endure homelessness. While she was somewhat cautious about the information that she provided to the minister, the BHSS advised the minister that the client was struggling financially and would soon be evicted from her home.
At approximately the same time, the BHSS accepted a counseling position in a different state. The BHSS informed her clients that she would be leaving the area and terminating her job with the local clinic. She made arrangements to refer all of her clients to therapists in the same clinic network and terminated her counseling relationship with all of her clients. Since the client and BHSS had mutual friends, the client knew the BHSS was not planning to sell or rent her home when she left the area. During the last session, the client became very emotional over the possibility of being homeless. She reported that she only had a few weeks before being evicted and no one locally could/would help her. Toward the end of the session, the client asked if she could rent the BHSS’s home, and the BHSS reluctantly agreed.
The BHSS and the client executed a basic home rental agreement, and, because the client was having a hard time with her finances, the BHSS agreed to let the client live rent free for two months. The agreement required the rent to be paid no later than the 15th of each month and that her first month’s rent would include the first and last month’s rent.
When the first rent payment was due, the client told the BHSS, via text message, that she was unable to pay the rent as she had started a new job and had not yet received a paycheck. The BHSS agreed to accept a delayed payment. Then, shortly after receiving the text, the BHSS saw several social media posts showing that the client was currently on a vacation with many of their mutual friends. As a result, the BHSS became angry, believing that the client had taken advantage of her generosity. The BHSS and client exchanged heated, and at times threatening, text messages.
The BHSS subsequently contacted the church minister to ascertain if he would schedule a meeting with her and the client. The minister agreed to help mediate the parties to a compromising resolution in order to avoid legal proceedings or legal fees.
When the meeting began, the minister made a statement that the client’s ongoing spending habits and lack of respect for people trying to help her was the cause of her housing and financial challenges. The client believed that the minister’s statements were directly related to private information she had shared with the BHSS during their counseling sessions. The minister ended the meeting soon after it began due to perceived erratic and aggressive behavior by the client.
Source: HPSO
BHSS breaches professional boundaries by entering landlord/tenant arrangement with client | HPSO