Ethical Decision-Making Model Summary

According to Theodore P. Remley, Jr., and Barbara Herlihy in Ethical, Legal, and Professional Issues in Counseling, once the proper set of codes of ethics has been determined, the counselor must consider how these principles can be applied to the dilemma to express a counselor’s commitment to professional values (2014). Applying codes of ethics often exposes the “gray area” existing in real-life ethical dilemmas, and forces the counselor to consider the implications of an ethical decision from multiple viewpoints. In the case of Levi and Makena, both of whom function as individuals in private session in addition to their role as a couple within couples counseling sessions, examining the moral dimensions of the dilemma from multiple perspectives is especially paramount.
When considering disclosure of Makena’s HIV-positive status, the counselor must consider how Makena’s autonomy is directly affected by the disclosure. According to Dr. Holly Forester-Miller and Thomas Davis in “A Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making,” the counselor can encourage autonomy by guiding an understanding of how decisions and values may be received by others, and how these factors relate to, or potentially infringe upon,
This concept, “above all else, do no harm,” reflects on the counselor’s obligation to not intentionally inflict harm, while also not engaging in or encouraging actions presenting harm to others (Welfel, 2012). The counselor must consider how disclosure interacts with the nonmaleficence principle: if the counselor comes to believe that non-disclosure of Makena’s HIV-positive status could lead to actions directly harming Levi, she must consider disclosing. If the counselor is able to encourage Makena to self-disclose by encouraging her autonomy over the situation, nonmaleficence may become less of a consideration for immediate