JCPSLP Vol 17 No 3 2015

55 / 64

JCPSLP Volume 17, Number 3 2015 165
whole issue a Conflict of Interest (3.3.7) that violates
the collective Values of the code? As I refer the code
to frame the iterations of my decision-making, I decide
that this does constitute a conflict of interest, and is
no longer a dilemma. More apparent is how good
decision-making as a clinician can be impacted by
what seems like a relatively simple request from a
friend or family. Fortunately, I have been able to direct
the requests to the Speech Pathology Australia The
Find a Speech Pathologist Search function (http://
for-the-community/find-a-speech-pathologist) and
circumvent any conflicts of interest.
The Speech Pathology Australia Code of Ethics (2010)
provides a framework for clinical and practical decision-
making. This is especially true when common sense is
blurred between professional and everyday life.
Suze Leitão and Trish Johnson – ethical
reflections
In 2006, Lindy McAllister challenged the profession to “think
and act ethically in the daily routines of the workplace, not
just when confronted with an ethical dilemma”. (McAllister,
2006, p. 79). In this final reflection, we can see how SC has
found the SPA Code of Ethics to be of value in guiding
decision-making, in particular when personal and
professional worlds collide! We were also struck by the way
in which SC has been able to turn some potentially
challenging situations into a proactive way of thinking to
guide every day thinking.
These three reflections have shown how those “fresh eyes”
are considering ethical issues in their daily practice, and
how our goal of supporting the profession in moving from
a reactive model of drawing on the code in response to
a dilemma, complaint, or problem to a proactive model
of ethical professional practice (risk management/risk
prevention) is being realised.
References
Cross, R., Leitão, S., and McAllister, L. (2015). Think big,
act locally: Responding to ethical dilemmas. Journal of
Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology,
17 (Supplement 1), 16–18.
Kenny, B., Lincoln, M., & Balandin, S. (2007). A dynamic
model of ethical reasoning in speech pathology. Journal of
Medical Ethics, 33(9), 508–513.
Leitão, S., Bradd, P., McAllister, L., Russell, A., Block., S.
Kenny, B., Smith, H., Wilson, C. (2014). Speech Pathology
Australia Ethics Education Package. Melbourne: Speech
Pathology Australia.
McAllister, L. (2006). Ethics in the workplace: More than
just using ethical decision making protocols. ACQuiring
Knowledge in Speech, Language, and Hearing, 8 (2), 76–80.
Speech Pathology Australia. (2010). Code of ethics.
Melbourne: Author.
1 All students and new graduates have been de-identified to
maintain confidentiality.
2 Jane is a pseudonym.
In this reflection, JC has commented on how working in
a supported environment allows her to access such advice.
This highlights how important it is for new graduates to
be able to access professional mentoring and support on
a regular basis to discuss such scenarios and build up
their “casuistry”. JC’s reflection also highlights how most
of the ethical issues she encounters are not dilemmas or
major crises, just potential issues. This reminds us of the
importance of being proactive rather than reactive in every
day professional (ethical) practice.
A newly graduated speech
pathologist reflecting on ethical
issues both as a student and a new
graduate
SC
The Speech Pathology Australia Code of Ethics (2010)
provides a framework for clinical decision-making, and
accountability and practice guidelines. Such codes
assist individuals by outlining their legal obligations
as distinct from the personal values of a professional
and the values of the profession” (Cross, Leitão, &
McAllister, 2015). As a certified practicing speech
pathologist, I draw upon the Speech Pathology
Australia code in my daily professional activities. For
example, I refer to the code for report writing (most
specifically the Standards of Practice descriptors 3.1.2,
3.1.3, 3.1.4) and prioritising clients (most specifically
the Principles descriptor 2.1). However, I draw upon
the code most heavily to guide my thought processes
and subsequent actions when lines blur between my
professional self and my everyday self.
I identify as a speech pathologist. For most of us,
speech pathology is not simply a job. Despite the
romanticism associated with this notion, it can be
troublesome. The first time the SPA code became truly
salient to me in the real world was during my clinical
training. During an assessment session for the early
intervention team, I recognised my partner’s friend,
Jane2 , the mother of a child recently diagnosed with
“X”. The recognition was not reciprocated; however,
I had to work hard to maintain the demeanour of
my professional self. A few weeks later, my partner
showed me a video of Jane and her child through
social media. No detail of the child’s diagnosis was
referred to in the social media post, but it was evident
that the child presented “atypically”. I had to fight
the urge to explain to my partner that I knew why
since I was part of the assessment process. The SPA
Code, specifically the Standards of Practice relating
to confidentiality (3.1.4), made the decision to either
remain silent or explain clear. There was no ethical
dilemma, so I remained silent.
Since graduating, I have been faced with ethical
dilemmas. Most commonly, I have had friends and
families accessing or in need of speech pathology
services. They have in turn asked me specifically
to provide intervention. A primary reason for this is
the ubiquitous waitlists for both public and private
paediatric speech pathology services. Perhaps I should
recommend a clinician I know personally, but do I
really know they will be the best fit for these families
(3.1.3)? Or is this in fact implicating the Autonomy (2.4)
of these potential clients by removing them from the
decision-making process? Or should I consider the
Correspondence to:
Suze Leitão
School of Psychology & Speech Pathology
Curtin University