One of the very first claims made by the authors is that this edition (the 10th) was carefully reviewed and updated to present current thinking, research, and trends in practice (Corey, Corey, and Corey, 2019). However, much like the webpage for the Commission for Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC), Corey et al (2019) continue to showcase outdated and inaccessible models of ethical decision making. While Corey et al (2019) do not embrace a particular ethical decision-making model, they do express what may be included in that model. This can be interpreted to mean that the counselor is left to pick and choose a model, as long as it is a model of ethical decision-making. While the CRCC website does list a variety of different decision-making models and interestingly enough, they are the same ones recommended by Corey et al (2019), both could probably benefit from updating these models using the latest research and evidence-based practices in the field. From the rehabilitation counseling perspective, there are many ethical decision-making models available. For example, in researching and reviewing the components of ethical decision-making models, Ling and Hauck (2016) found that the contemporary models of ethical decision-making which include those suggested by the Corey et al (2019) and the CRCC website (i.e., Tarvydas, 1998; Cottone, 2001; Garcia, Cartwright, & Borchukowska, 2003; Herlihy & Watson, 2007; Corey, Corey, Corey & Callahan, 2014) were (1) designed for use within in a limited context of ethical cases; and, (2) created before the advent of the most recent Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors (CPREC 2016). Moreover, Corey et al (2019) still lists the outdated (2010) CPREC as the reference for ethics in the rehabilitation counseling profession. (2019) a passion for the study of ethics in that it requires the use of critical thinking skills and strengthens the individuals ability to make judgments within a preferred decision-making process. I would love to see the ethical decision-making model on that one. This raises significant ethical issues as important treatment decisions may be made by a non-professional who has never seen the client and who lacks a depth of understanding of mental health issues emphasis added (Corey et al., 2019, p. I am intrigued by the systems theory concept so, chapter 11 although heavily focused on ethics issues was one I was looking forward to reading. From an ethical perspective, the important points that stuck out to me were (1) in the informed consent process, it was important to clearly outline the role that secrets will play in the client-counselor relationship. Further, from the multi-person treatment perspective, I found it important to answer the question What are my ethical responsibilities to each of the parties in this case (Corey et al., 2019, p.403). An important statement pertinent to any counseling discipline was If we are unaware of our own vulnerabilities, we might misinterpret our clients comments or steer them in a direction that will not arouse our own anxiety (Corey et al., 2019, p. Additionally, I was intrigued by the explication of Yaloms (2005) suggestions for screening people who may be poor candidates for group therapy along with the suggestions of the types of problems that may be better suited to the group encounter (Corey et al., 2019). Ultimately, along with the particular presentation on the importance of confidentiality, I found the discussion on the distinctions between evidence-based practices (EBPs), practice-based evidence (PBE), and feedback-informed treatment (FIT), to help me in the formulation of what I perceived to be important from a theoretical vista in the conduct of group therapy; viz., that as a practitioner of the existential approach that FIT and PBE may be more suited to predicting outcomes than EBPs. At the risk of being overly cynical, my reflection on chapter 13 deal primarily with Corey et al. If one of the intents of this chapter which I understand it to be was to empower the counselor to Strive for social change by challenging colleagues who have made erroneous assumptions regarding marginalized client populations, then I think it is time to call out the authors. (2019) has opted to take the path of least resistance in this particular aspect of the community and social justice perspectives, and instead, opted to present the mythos of the homeless Veteran as one involving their inability to adapt to the authors perception of society. Part of our ethical and moral obligation is to advocate with the aim of creating a just society in which all people have equal opportunity and resources to strive toward their personal goals (Corey et al., 2019, p. As mentioned before, I have a background in moral philosophy both academically and professionally as such, I sensed a certain pathos of distance between myself and the writers expressions and understanding of ethics. Or, I would start to feel like I had some incredible knowledge to share, but that due to the perceived simplicity of the text particularly within the field of moral philosophy comments like this would race through my mind: What am I reading? Ultimately, if anything, through this experience, and my reading of ethical application particular to the counseling profession, I have learned the importance of patience and attempting to view ideas through the lens of others. My experience, through reading this text, has provided me with a better understanding of why this is important and hopefully will enhance my social advocacy skills at using philosophical based thinking as an appropriate mode of interacting with future clients, coworkers, and the community I will practice in. Lastly, the second point, and one I feel strongly reflects my experience of reading this text, is that it forced me to re-examine some of my earlier groundwork in ethics. Code of professional ethics for rehabilitation counselors. Code of professional ethics for rehabilitation counselors. A social constructivism model of ethical decision-making in counseling.Journal of Counseling Development, 79, 39-45. A transcultural integrative ethical decision-making model in counseling. Social justice and counseling ethics. In R.R. Cottone & V.M. Tarvydas (Eds.), Ethical and Professional Issues in Counseling (pp.
It gave me a different perspective about Aaron's role as a doctor as well.