Ethical Models: Rest's and Hill, Glaser, and Harden's Model

          According to Cottone and Claus (2000), the integration of the intuitive factor into ethical decision making "improves the decision-making process" (para. 13).  Hill, Glaser, and Harden (1995) believe "values, beliefs, and factors such as gender, race, class and sexual/affectional preferences of the people involved are assumed to affect the ethical dilemma (para. 17). 

     

According to Cottone and Claus (2000), the integration of the intuitive factor into ethical decision making "improves the decision-making process" (para. 13).  Hill, Glaser, and Harden (1995) believe "values, beliefs, and factors such as gender, race, class and sexual/affectional preferences of the people involved are assumed to affect the ethical dilemma (para. 17).  

          The pros of this model is that it uses the therapist's intuition as part of the decision making.  As it is with any human decision, the use of intuition creates a limitation, in that the decision may only be as ethically strong as the decision maker's intuition.  The second strength is that it is a more holistic model for ethical decision making in that it accounts for a wider range of human factors in the process.  The second limitation could be that this model gives more power to the client.  In some cases, and depending on the client's value systems, it could inhibit the counselor's most appropriate choice in the decision.

            The first step is to gather information to determine the nature of the ethical problems.  Then the stake holders must be identified as well as the primary client.  Finally, the counselor identifies applicable standards, such as codes and laws (Hill, Glaser, and Harden, 1995).  If there is a standard that applies to the problem, the solution is in applying that standard to the problem.  If there is not one particular code or law that is obviously applicable, one must work toward identifying the primary ethical principle (if two or more principles are competing.)  If the counselor still has no idea how to decide, he or she must "consult with others, research the literature, and attempt to prioritize the principles" (Hill, Glaser, & Harden, 1995, p. 23).  Ultimately the choice is toward reaching a balancing between doing the least harm and achieving the best and most successful outcome.  Finally, the counselor must determine if the choice causes other ethical dilemmas and if it is practical to implement.  After implementing the decision, it should be reviewed and evaluated.

             The bottom line in ethical decision making is that merely embracing ethical models only provides a parameter by which individuals understand, in a rhetorical sense, how to best utilize these models.  The most positive outcomes, however, must implement and integrate these models into an intrinsic and core understanding.  As new counselors are exposed to the various gray areas of ethical decision making, it is essential not only to understand ethics, but to be ethical.  As Rest (1994, as cited in Cottone & Claus, 2000) believed, these models are neither linear aspects nor temporal orders, but must be visceral understandings.  From deep understanding comes our ability to make decisions that can be supported by any one of the models of decision making.  Ultimately, we cannot make moral judgments yet remain indifferent.  There must be a deep and evolving commitment to becoming ethical.

Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: A review of the literature. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(3), 275–283.

Kekes, J. (1984). Moral Sensitivity. Philosophy, 59(227), 3. doi: 10.1017/S003181910005645X

Hill, M., Glaser, K., & Harden, J. (1995). Chapter 2: A feminist model for ethical decision making. (1995). In E. J. Rave & C. C. Larsen (Eds.), Ethical decision making in therapy: Feminist perspectives (pp. 18-37). New York: Guilford Press.