1219 Winter, 2014 (third assignment)Yu Yong Esther Chung (951067880)To evaluate the ethical dilemma presented in Mr. Brown's case, the two ethical principles set forth in the Canadian Code of Ethics (2001) for Psychologists will be examined: principle II (care responsibility) and principle III (integrity in relationships). The main question is whether it would be unethical for the psychologist to barter an agreement that allows the client to pay for the therapy session by repainting the psychologist's house. Should the psychologist develop a business relationship in addition to the professional relationship he has with the client? If the psychologist went ahead and bartered a deal with Mr. Brown, would this cross a professional boundary? If so, what impact would this have on the psychologist and the client? Boundaries in therapeutic relationships are vital to keeping clients safe and psychologists are cautioned in developing potential dual relationships with their clients as they may represent a conflict of interest. This, in turn, may damage the integrity of the therapeutic relationship (principle 3) (Canadian Psychological Association, 2001; Hearn, 2011). Furthermore, psychologists occupy positions of authority and power, and clients are vulnerable and may be susceptible to exploitation. Some argue that once a psychologist crosses a professional boundary, it is the beginning of a “slippery slope” that will likely result in further boundary-breaking by the psychologist (Zur & Lazarus, 2002). In this case, there are two alternative actions that the psychologist could take. One would be to refuse Mr. Brown's offer to paint the psychologist's house in exchange for therapy to prevent the professio...... middle of paper ...... psychologist from communicating openly with Mr. Brown about the situation and try to find a way to resolve any complications that arise. Throughout the discussion, the psychologist should keep an accurate record of the discussions, the agreed terms of the dual relationships (professional and business), and the reasons for bartering an agreement. If the psychologist feels the need, he or she may also consult with other professionals regarding this situation. In conclusion, discontinuing therapy due to the client's inability to pay for treatment would be unnecessary and harmful to the client. Rigid boundaries may interfere with the psychologist's relationship building as he or she will be seen as cold and distant (Zur & Lazarus, 2002). Boundary crossing may be carefully managed so that it does not interfere with the therapeutic goal and relationship.