Clients and Relationships

The definition of "client" required recognition of different relationships, including a single client, family organization, as well as multiple clients. The distinction between primary and secondary clients was addressed: Tn the following Meta-Code the term "client" refers to any person, patients, persons in interdependence or organizations with whom psychologists have a professional relationship, including indirect relationships.'

Determination of the client is also challenging when a person has significant learning difficulties (intellectual dis­abilities) and carers have responsibilities (Adams & Boyd, 2010). Such plenary clients (in the US) may have carers with full decision-making responsibility as guardians (those with "power of attorney" in the UK). The loss of civil rights, however, does not preclude the psychologist from considering their ethical responsibilities with respect to the primary client and those with such responsibilities.

The nature of the relationship between psychologist and client also presented challenges. The АРА stipulated in its 1992 edition of its code, in the Therapy section, that sexual intimacies with current clients were forbidden and also that:

"Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with a former therapy patient or client for at least two years after cessation or termination of profes­sional services." (ethical standard 4.07a).

However, standard 4.07b developed at much greater length that, notwithstanding 4.07a, the obligation on the psy­chologist was really not to engage in such behavior, because such relationships were frequently harmful and they "under­mine public confidence in the psychology profession."

This apparent ambiguity was a result of a debate on this issue which had, at that point, resulted in this rather uneasy (apparent) compromise. Furthermore, the term "client" could be too restrictive here as the section concerned therapy and a psychologist might have relationships with others such as students, where power relationships could also be abused (e.g., Glaser & Thorpe, 1986).

For the Task Force the question of time passed subse­quent to the end of a professional relationship was not the primary issue, neither was a focus on therapy, even if this is the most sensitive form of relationship for a psychologist in practice. Rather, the potential impact on a "client" of the use (abuse) of the inherent power relationship was consid­ered fundamental. This issue was also debated within the АРА and its 2002 code removed this time specification. Instead, there was a substantial rewriting which led to a for­mulation with reference to multiple relationships in general and the ethical obligations that arose. This approach had already been taken in the formulation of the Meta-code, whose relevant specifications (3.4.4 Conflict of Interests and Exploitation) read:

(i) Awareness of the possible problems which may result from dual relationships and an obligation to avoid such dual relationships which reduce the necessary professional distance or may lead to conflict of interests, or exploitation of a client.

(ii) Obligation not to exploit a professional relationship to further personal, religious, political or other ideological interests.

(iii) Awareness that conflict of interest and inequality of power in a relationship may still reside after the professional relationship is formally terminated, and that professional responsibilities may still apply.