[Neurons] NLP and Ethics

[Carl Lloyd]

Andrew (and all), I carry about every license feasible in mental health arenas EXCEPT licensed clinical psychologist but have studied the Codes of Ethics for every mental health group extensively, INCLUDING clinical psychology's text.  Having said this, I would argue that NLP and NS pose no more or no less ethical issues than any other model, theory, skill, etc. given the codes for the mental health professionals.  While I could write much on this, let me suffice with a couple items here.
 
First, "ethics" and "ethical practice" have very little to do with the models, skills, theories, etc. but focus solely upon the practitioner, counselor, therapist, etc.  Some tend to think of "ethics" as a "thing" instead of an array of potentials, opportunities, etc.  I'd bet 90-95% of mental health licenses which are revoked have to do with infractions violating client boundaries, specifically sexual boundaries.  This leads to "multiple relationships" (used to be called dual relationships)...being a therapist and being a sexual partner, etc. is unethical.  For our discussion now, NLP and NS do not promote or lead to multiple relationships.  Clinicians do this.
 
Second, there are significant differences between Law, Morals, and Ethics.  While moral values likely "drive" law and ethics, many of our professional groups have intentionally worked to remove the language of "moral values"; perhaps hoping to avoid any link to a particular value system (e.g., Judaeo-Christian values).  30 years ago, NASW's code of ethics was intentionally changed to avoid any link to J-C values (I have a mentor who was present during those meetings and as a Jew he was amazed at the clear biases driving this change).  APA did the same thing.  But there are many members in these groups who embrace the J-C value system.  Botton line:  every practitioner has a value system from which they make ethical decisions.  For this discussion, NLP and NS are models which do not inherently reflect a specified value system.  However, every NLPr has a value system which informs their ethical decisions.
 
Third, Ethics is not a thing but a process.  Every ethical code has evolved with the changes of culture, the needs to protect clients from abuse by professionals, etc.  You can download copies of earlier codes for any profession and see radical changes, clarifications, etc.  Ethics does not tell us what and when to do such and such.  Values and Laws do this.  Ethics codes are in place to inform the clinician of the standards for their profession's perspective on specific activities which may lead to dilemmas.  For instance, some codes permit "bartering" for services, while others forbid such.  While all codes forbid having sex with clients, some codes stipulate having sex with a previous client is fine just as long as 3-5 years have passed since your last session (I find this ludicrous, but my values would forbid sex with any client or previous client...period).
 
Fourth, some argue that true ethical dilemmas never occur in real life because one's values will always resolve the mere idea of a dilemma.  For some, a real dilemma will never be resolved 100%.  Others suggest that the professional codes must drive all decision making when approaching ethical dilemmas.  In the world of mental health licensing, every licensure body requires 3-4 continuing education hours (CEUs) each year in ethics, likely as a way to decrease the number of client abuse cases.  It may also be helpful to realize that each state licenses mental health practitioners (not a national license).  Each state has a professional organization in which professionals have membership.  There is also another group in each state appointed by that state's governor or other legislative body.  The first group serves to protect the professional.  The second group serves to protect the client.  The second group investigates ethics complaints and has the power to revoke or suspend licenses.  Perhaps NLP and NS have driving codes of ethics.  To my knowledge, no formal codes exist but the values and laws would certainly inform ethical practice, regardless.
 
Hope this helps, at least to the degree I grasp your question about the "dangerousness" of NLP or NS.  
 
Carl Lloyd, Ph.D.
Professor, tenured
Oregon, USA

________________________________

From: neurons-bounces at neurosemanticsegroups.com on behalf of Andrew Bryant
Sent: Sun 12/28/2008 3:58 AM
To: neurons at neurosemanticsegroups.com
Subject: [Neurons] NLP and Ethics




>From Andrew Bryant www.selfleadership/blog


Further to my post on whether NLP is dangerous I have been asked about the
ethics of NLP.

Wikepedia describes ethics as major branch of philosophy, encompassing
right conduct and good life. The Wikepedia ehtics post gives a good
summary of the major prinicples of philosophy governing our thinking about
ethics including:

Socrates who equated knowledge with virture.
Aristotle who promoted moderation.
Epictetus who promoted self mastery

...And applied ethics which attempts to apply theory to real life situations.

In a modern world what has emerged is 'legal ethics' which equates to,
"what can I do that I won't get locked up for?"

Legal ethics has given rise to the concept of 'full disclosure' which has
put the burden on medical practitioners to explain to a patient the
potential risks of any procedure.

Even a cursory study of NLP or psychology would alert the reader to the
danger of the Pygmalion Effect or Self fulfilling prophesy. What kind of
embedded command is, "I don't want you to WORRY but this procedure might
cause you to DIE."?

NLP is about knowledge and particularly self awareness (going meta) and
self management (state management), and so is in-line with Greek
philisophical thinking on ethics.

Can it live up to that other Greek, Hippocrates who gave the medical
profession the oath to "do no harm"?

My belief that it is all in client selection and framing.

Milton Erickson set us an example when he would  get his patient's to
climb a hill before he would see them. By getting them to do something
uncomfortable he set the conditions for compliance and a response
potential. In other words, if they weren't prepared to do something for
themselves but wanted the hypnotist to do it to them, they were not taking
responsibility for the change.

When I teach coaching, I make sure my student's know whether their
prospective client has the ego strength to face reality and take
responsibility for the change.

When we talk to our client's we should frame up that we are engaging in a
process where they can effect the change for themselves and we are just
facilitating the process. When we do this we are true to the NLP
presupposition that, "people have all the resources they need, they just
need to access and amplify them."

In addition the NLP ecology frame gets us to check whether the outcome is
good for self/other and short/long term.

In my view this is ethical practice for the use of NLP methodologies, but
I am sure there are other perspectives and I would welcome your input.

Andrew Bryant www.selfleadership.com/blog

NS and NLP training in Singapore in 2009:

Coaching Essentials http://www.selfleadership.com/coaching-essentials.htm
Coaching Genius http://www.selfleadership.com/coaching_genius.htm
Master Practitioner http://www.selfleadership.com/NLP_master-practitioner.htm


Regards, Andrew

Andrew Bryant
Executive Coach and Leadership Trainer
andrew at selfleadership.com
www.selfleadership.com

_______________________________________________
Neurons mailing list
Neurons at neurosemanticsegroups.com
http://lists.neurosemanticsegroups.com/mailman/listinfo/neurons


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://eight.pairlist.net/pipermail/neurons/attachments/20090101/b21aae7d/attachment.html>