Topic 4 DQ 2 (Obj. 4.2) Marcie is a new client and a 22-year-old female who works as a receptionist in a doctor's office. She has just revealed to you during the intake session that she has recently lost interest in most activities, has been sleeping a great deal yet feels tired all the time, and sometimes wishes she could cease to exist. She mentioned feeling as though she has been "on an emotional roller coaster" during the past year, throughout her on-again/off-again relationship with a 35-year-old married man. The last breakup with him seemed final, and Marcie has felt herself sinking deeper and deeper into depression ever since. When probed further about suicidal ideations, Marcie admitted that she has considered killing herself, although she is uncertain whether or not she would actually do it. She said that she is currently in possession of a gun that her friend allowed her to keep in her home following a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood, but she does not know whether she would actually use it.You have consulted with your supervisor, who has agreed that Marcie should be referred immediately for a psychiatric evaluation and has instructed you to arrange for Marcie to go directly from your office to a nearby hospital. Marcie told you that her mother accompanied her and is in the waiting room, but she has emphatically stated that she does not want her mother to know what is going on with her. How should this delicate situation be handled? Why? What are three ethical and/or legal concerns about this case?This discussion question is informed by the following CACREP Standards:5.C.2.a. Roles and settings of clinical mental health counselors.Attempt Start Date: 21-Jan-2021 at 12:00:00 AMDue Date:undefined25-Jan-2021 at 11:59:59 PM

Create a PowerPoint presentation of at least 10 slides that could be given in a professional context. The presentation will demonstrate the use of professional guidelines and tools that create a strategy for dealing with an ethical dilemma in a simulated case study, and will analyze the usefulness of those guidelines and tools View the Case Study Scenario Parts 1 and 2, which are linked in Required Resources. Complete this assessment by replacing all language that is enclosed with brackets […] in the PowerPoint with your own words. As in the previous assessment, you may enhance the design of the presentation to make it more effective. Again, links to tips for using PowerPoint and designing effective presentations are provided in Suggested Resources. Review Fisher's Ethical Decision-Making Model, which is linked in Required Resources. Review Ethical Theories, which is linked in Required Resources. The Presentation Your PowerPoint should include the following: Title slide: On the first slide of the PowerPoint: Enter a descriptive title of approximately 5–15 words that concisely communicates the heart of the case study. It should stir interest while maintaining professional decorum. Enter your name, and a job title and organization that would fit with your case study. Case Study Overview slides: Provide the briefest possible narrative description of the professional conflict in the case. Additional supporting details and references can be added in the notes section in the slide. The overview should include: The professional setting of the case. Brief descriptions of the individuals involved and their roles. A brief summation of the ethical dilemma presented in the case study. Ethical Concerns slides: Bullet point three or more ethical concerns in the case and apply one or more ethical standards to each concern. Additional supporting details and references can be added in the notes section on the slide. Be sure to link to elements of the code. Comparison of Ethical Theories slides: In the first row of the provided table, enter the names of two ethical theories that you think would be the most appropriate for the situations in the case. In the following rows, enter comparisons of relevant features of the two theories. In the notes section, evaluate which theory provides a more functional framework for your case and explain why. (Note that ethical theories and ethical decision-making models are two different things. Please make sure you are comparing, contrasting, and evaluating two ethical theories). Ethical Decision-Making Model slides: Choose an ethical decision-making model, and identify each step in the model. Apply the model to your case and, under each step of the model, describe how that step would look if you applied it to the case. Incorporate multicultural issues presented in the case study within the selected ethical decision-making model. Add copies of this slide as needed, and combine steps on the slides as necessary or appropriate. In the notes section, write out supporting narrative details for your bullet points. (Note that ethical theories and ethical decision-making models are two different things. Please make sure you are applying steps of the ethical decision-making model to your case). Proposed Resolution slide: Use bullet points to summarize your proposed resolution to the ethical dilemmas in the case. In the notes section, write out supporting narrative details for your bullet points. References slides  CASE STUDY Multiculturalism Scene 1, Professor’s Office Ben: Good Morning Jenny. Are you interruptible? Jenny: Oh hi Ben. (friendly and teasing), nice surprise. Well, I was just prepping for my upcoming course, but for the department chair I am sure I can take a few minutes. Ben: Well, I certainly appreciate the time, professor. I wish I had good news. Have you heard about Stan? His wife Julia just had a stroke yesterday. Jenny: Oh my god, that is terrible! Ben: I know. It truly is just awful. They think she will be okay but she is probably going to need lots of therapy. Stan is going to take the semester off to help out with her and the kids. Jenny: Oh what a nightmare. Poor Julia, and Stan and the kids. Ben: I know, that is why I am here. It leaves us shorthanded here too. Stan was going to teach biopsychology this semester and now he will not be able to. I was hoping you could step in and teach the course. Jenny: (apprehensive) Oh my, well I do not know Ben, I am really not sure. I only had one biospych course myself as an undergrad… Ben: No need to worry, we can get all the syllabus and all the material information from Stan and I bet you would do a great job. Listen, there we have got fifteen students who need to that course to graduate. We cannot let them down. Jenny: That is a sticky situation, Ben but I am just not sure… Ben: Oh you will be fine. You are still interested in that full-time position when Professor Lee retires, right? Oh by the way, I need to know your answer by 3:00 today whether or not you can teach the course. If not I need to find another professor. Jenny: Okay Ben. Let me think about it and I will get back to you today. PART 2 Jenny: I do not know Rhonda, something about this just does not seem right to me. Should I teach the biopsych course even though I have had almost no experience? I mean, why me? Rhonda: Yeah, have you ever noticed how whenever a problem crops up at the last minute, it is always up to one of us to come in and save the day? Jenny: I just do not get it. None of the full professors ever gets overloaded like this. Why did Ben not go to Alan? Do you think it is because we are not full professors yet or maybe it is because we are women? Rhonda: I do not know. It seems like an old boys club to me. I bet if they asked Alan teach the class they would have offered to pay to pay him something extra. They did not offer to pay you something extra, did they? Jenny: No, of course not. Rhonda: See what I mean? Jenny: Yeah, (sigh) something about it just is not right. REVIEW PART 1 Ben: Good Morning Jenny. Are you interruptible? Jenny: Oh hi Ben. (friendly and teasing), nice surprise. Well, I was just prepping for my upcoming course, but for the department chair I am sure I can take a few minutes. Ben: Well, I certainly appreciate the time, professor. I wish I had good news. Have you heard about Stan? His wife Julia just had a stroke yesterday. Jenny: Oh my god, that is terrible! Ben:I know. It truly is just awful. They think she will be okay but she is probably going to need lots of therapy. Stan is going to take the semester off to help out with her and the kids. Jenny: Oh what a nightmare. Poor Julia, and Stan and the kids. Ben: I know, that is why I am here. It leaves us shorthanded here too. Stan was going to teach biopsychology this semester and now he will not be able to. I was hoping you could step in and teach the course. Jenny: (apprehensive) Oh my, well I do not know Ben, I am really not sure. I only had one biospych course myself as an undergrad… Ben: No need to worry, we can get all the syllabus and all the material information from Stan and I bet you would do a great job. Listen, there we have got fifteen students who need to that course to graduate. We cannot let them down. Jenny: That is a sticky situation, Ben but I am just not sure… Ben: Oh you will be fine. You are still interested in that full-time position when Professor Lee retires, right? Oh by the way, I need to know your answer by 3:00 today whether or not you can teach the course. If not I need to find another professor. Jenny: Okay Ben. Let me think about it and I will get back to you today. INTRODUCTION This media piece explains four ethical theories in order to prepare you for the Unit 3 assignment, Case Study Resolution. This media piece also includes parts 1 and 2 of the case study for your review. PART 3 Deontology The ethical position to do what is right out of duty or obligation. It is often called rule-based ethics. Deontology has been described as "absolutist," "universal," and "impersonal" (Kant, 1785/1959). It prioritizes absolute obligations over consequences. In this moral framework, ethical decision making is the rational act of applying universal principles to all situations irrespective of specific relations, contexts, or consequences. This reflects Immanuel Kant's conviction that ethical decisions cannot vary or be influenced by special circumstances or relationships. Rather, a decision is "moral" only if a rational person believes the act resulting from the decision should be universally followed in all situations. For Kant, respect for the worth of all persons was one such universal principle. A course of action that results in a person being used simply as a means for others' gains would ethically unacceptable. With respect to deception in research, from a deontological perspective, since we would not believe it moral to intentionally deceive individuals in some other context, neither potential benefits to society nor the effectiveness of participant debriefing for a particular deception study can morally justify intentionally deceiving persons about the purpose or nature of a research study. Further, deception in research would not be ethically permissible since intentionally disguising the nature of the study for the goals of research violates the moral obligation to respect each participant's intrinsic worth by undermining individuals' right to make rational and autonomous decisions regarding participation (Fisher & Fyrberg, 1994). Utilitarianism The ethical position depends on the consequences of the action with the goal being producing the most good. Utilitarian theory prioritizes the consequences (or utility) of an act over the application of universal principles (Mill, 1861/1957). From this perspective, an ethical decision is situation specific and must be governed by a risk-benefit calculus that determines which act will produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad consequences. An "act utilitarian" makes an ethical decision by evaluating the consequences of an act for a given situation. A "rule utilitarian" makes an ethical decision by evaluating whether following a general rule in all similar situation would create the greater good. Like deontology, utilitarianism is impersonal: It does not take into account interpersonal and relational features of ethical responsibility. From this perspective, psychologists' obligations to those with whom they work can be superseded by an action that would produce a greater good for others (Fisher, 1999). A psychologist adhering to act utilitarianism might decide that the potential knowledge about social behavior generated by a specific deception study could produce benefits for many members of society, thereby justifying the minimal risk of harm and violation of autonomy rights for a few research participants. A rule utilitarian might decide against the use of deception in all research studies because the unknown benefits to society did not outweigh the potential harm to the discipline of psychology if society began to see it as an untrustworthy science. Communitarianism The ethical position in which the right action is derived from a community's values and traditions. Communitarian theory assumes that right actions derive from community values, goals, traditions, and cooperative virtues. Accordingly, different populations with whom a psychologist works may require different conceptualizations of what is ethically appropriate (MacIntyre 1989; Walzer, 1983). Unlike deontology, communitarianism rejects the elevation of individual over group rights. Whereas utilitarianism asks whether a policy will produce the greatest good for all individuals in society, communitarianism asks whether a policy will promote the kind of community we want to live in (Steinbock et al., 2003). Scientists as member of a community of shared values have traditionally assumed that (a) the pursuit of knowledge is a universal good and that (b) consideration for the practical consequences of research will inhibit scientific progress (Fisher, 1999; Sarason, 1984; Scarr, 1988). From this "community of scientists" perspective, the results of deception research would deprive society of this knowledge. Thes, communitarian theory may be implicitly reflected, at least in part, in the acceptance of deception research in the APA Ethics Code (Standard 8.07, Deception in Research) and in current federal regulations (Department of Heath and Human Services [DHHS], 2009) as representing the values of the scientific community. At the same time little is known about the extent to which the "community of research participants" shares the scientific community's valuing of deception methods (Fisher & Fyrberg, 1994). Feminism The ethical position to act on behalf of persons with whom one has a significant relationship. Feminist ethics, or an ethics of care, sees emotional commitment to act on behalf of persons with whom one has a significant relationship as central to ethical decision making. This moral theory rejects the primacy of universal and individual right in favor of relationally specific obligations (Baier, 1985; Brabeck, 2000; Fisher, 2000; Gilligan, 1982). Feminist ethics also focuses our attention on power imbalances and supports efforts to promote equality of power and opportunity. In evaluating the ethics of deception research, feminist psychologists might view intentional deception as a violation of interpersonal obligations of trust by investigators to participants and as reinforcing power inequities by permitting psychologist to deprive persons of information that might affect their decision to participate.