The Clara Cell Review

                                                        The Clara Cell Review
                                                                    Psy570
        In the paper The Clara Cell by: A. Winkelmann and T. Noack, I believe the central ethical conflict was how he practiced medicine, which they called "medicine without humanity". Humans have come up with a lot of sayings that describe various things they do such as "the end justifies the means" and " who can put a price on what's for the greater good", but doing things like that such as aiding or reaping the rewards of unjustifiable deaths, as Max Clara did, just to make advances in science is inexcusable even if greater goods came from such experiments and scientific findings. They were all done in vain.

        By today's APA code of ethics standards, Max Clara would have been in violation of all 5. He had no morals or responsibility for his actions as they were all for the support of the Nazi regime. He lacked integrity because you cannot possess integrity when you believe and act above the law. Not only was he excepting part of the “more than 4,000 executions in 1943” (725), but “Even 7 years after the Nazi era” (725) he was carefully wording his admission to still accepting cadavers for studies. While some would argue that he had integrity in his work because he continued to do his work for the so-called good of science, but, I believe, he did his work without integrity because with it he would have believed in himself enough to know his work would have stood on better ground and for more had he at least rightfully sought permission to use wrongfully persecuted cadavers. “Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.” (Wikipedia) Seriously, how do people justify this stuff to themselves? Therefore, he obviously lacked justice as he had a warped sense of justice since the cadavers were of people wrongfully killed for one mans deluded mindset that anyone not Arian must die. Obviously, Max Clara also obliterated the concepts of respect for people’s rights and dignity because he didn't even want to notify the next of kin of what was happening to their loved ones. People were disposable to him; they were nothing more than experimental dummies that he never looked at as humans with souls that bled the same color as he did. He was deluded and narcissistic to but it nicely. Though he may have made advances in science they were made in cold blood and he should never have had the right to have his name associated with anything of note that he found just based on his lack of ethics to how he found it. We should not reap rewards for wrongs. As for ethical standards, well he had absolutely no consent of any form from any of his cadavers while they were living nor from next of kin after they were murdered, period, enough said.

        The ethical implications of the Clara cell on contemporary psychology are that you cannot murder people in the name of a regime or science than just act like you're above the law and next to god. Therefore, there are rules, regulations, guidelines, laws, checks and balances, ethical boards and licensing boards, consent forms, sign offs, informational who what when where and whys, paperwork to back up paperwork, morals, and values being taught, support groups and helplines for people who start to have crazy thoughts and so on. The fact that at some point genetics started allowing for lapses in people’s better judgment of right and wrong has lead humanity as a society to have an overabundance of people checking on people so other people don’t get hurt somehow.

        Research in society is a hard thing to achieve. People want to be informed but they do not want their privacy to be violated. They want to feel as though they are contributing to the greater good and helping but they want to be in control of everything as if that is something that is tangible to have. It’s become an increasing struggle for researchers to find valid, sound-minded, truthful people to conduct scientific studies on because people need to know everything. Fear of the unknown has become so crippling that scientific advances are hindered legally to keep everyone's rights protected and intact. Psychological professionals just as scientists must make every effort to inform participants of as much as they can and offer ample debriefing of any and all ways after the study is complete so that the participants do not feel hurt, harmed, violated, demoralized, cheated, lied to, not fully informed, disoriented, confused, or any other form of sad or bad. Only glad is accepted nowadays. This not only to the participants themselves but to their families as well.



                                                          Works Cited and References:

• Winkelmann, A., & Noack, T. (2010, March 11). The Clara Cell: A "Third Reich eponym"? European Respiratory Journal, 36(4), 722-727.
• Dusing B. Abschaffung der Todesstrafe in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. [Abolition of capital punishment in the Federal Republic of Gerrmany.] Dissertation, University of Freiburg/Br., 1952.
• Integrity definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity

Dual Relationships Vs Multiple Role Relationships in Psychology

                      Dual Relationships Vs Multiple Role Relationships in Psychology
                                                                      PSY570

        An example of a dual relationship is if a woman, who was a hairdresser, became a client of a therapist, and through the therapy, that fact was divulged. After a while, it was agreed upon that the hairdresser would become the therapists’ hairdresser because she could see so many potentialities with the therapist's hair. It became a mutual verbal, not written, or contractual agreement. This right here is a dual relationship because the therapist/client relationship has now moved into a double role including hairdresser/customer.

        The potential issues that could arise are more than a hairstyle is worth. If the hairdresser falls on hard times and wants to barter and trade it leaves a wide-open window for a haircut/styling gone bad and even if the therapist was a paying client it could jade the therapist/client relationship. Even if the hairdresser doesn't fall on hard times but maybe the therapist does and thinks how about a freebie since I know your life story. That’s preying on a person’s kindness who has entrusted you with their precious emotional stability. Exploitation at its finest. However, things could work out wonderfully that each pays their way through the others trade/service and all’s well that goes well, but it’s a slim likelihood in today's fickle society that someone won’t get ticked about something and allow the trickle-down effect to ruin all good things. While the dual relationship should never transpire, if it does, it should be recorded on the therapist’s part and paid full price by both parties on a worked-out/ agreed upon schedule that is never derived from or taken for granted and is contractually signed by both parties. Also, should the therapist/client relationship ever mutually conclude but the hairdresser/customer relationship continues, it should be clearly noted and understood by both parties that while in the hairdressers’ chair therapy doesn't begin?

        A good rule of thumb seems to be as Kitchener states in her article titled “Dual Role Relationships: What Makes Them So Problematic?”

        Three guidelines are offered to differentiate between relationships that have a high probability of leading to harm and those that do not. First, as the incompatibility of expectations increases between roles, so will the potential for harm. Second, as the obligations associated with different roles diverge, the potential for loss of objectivity and divided loyalties increases. Third, as the power and prestige between the professional’s and consumer’s roles increase, so does the potential for exploitation. Last, it is argued that, as the risks of harm increase, so should the ethical prohibitions about engaging in the relationship.

        A multiple role relationships would be if while still counseling the hairdresser the therapist one day meets one of the hairdressers’ colleagues, fellow hairdressers, and strikes up a relationship with that person. Now the hairdressers somehow get into a scuffle and the therapist is in the middle hearing professionally and personally how each hairdresser is a bad person because let’s face it, childish behavior doesn't always come from children. The APA would say these relationships should never have commenced let alone escalated, let alone anything because the therapist should know better. Now not only are the hairdressers in bad emotional stances they are putting added strain on the therapist trying to smooth it out so that hairdresser one doesn't Sinead O'Connor the therapists’ hair because of a poor word choice combination that triggers a bad reaction while the therapist is sitting in the hairdresser’s chair for her monthly trim. Because the therapist feels she owes it to hairdresser one to not abandon her on any level yet it's splitting her loyalties. Common sense would say this is just bad all the way around and no matter how it's handled the poop is knee-deep and everyone is getting hurt. However, in the article “Dual Relationships Not Always Bad”, "Not all multiple relationships are created equal. There are different types of multiple relationships." (Zur, 2007)

• A social multiple relationship is one in which a therapist and client are also friends, acquaintances, or have some other type of social relations within their community.
• A professional multiple relationship is where a psychotherapist/counselor and client, are also professional colleagues in colleges or training institutions, presenters in professional conferences, co-authors of a book, or other situations that create professional multiple relationships.
• Institutional multiple relationships take place in the military, prisons, some police departments, and mental hospitals where multiple relationships are an inherent part of the institutional settings.
• Forensic multiple relationships involve clinicians who serve as treating therapists, evaluators, and witnesses in trials or hearings.
• Supervisory relationships inherently involve multiple relationships and multiple loyalties. A supervisor has a professional relationship and duty to the supervisee and to the client, as well as to the profession.
• A sexual multiple relationship is where a therapist and client are also involved in a sexual relationship.
• Sexual multiple relationships with current clients are always unethical. A business multiple relationship is generally ill-advised. These are relationships, in which a therapist and client are business partners or have an employer-employee relationship.

        His bullet points are very interesting as almost all avenues I’ve looked through pedal push the many reasons why it is bad but Zur does make strong points about how much multiple role relationships exist in small towns and how it is inevitable or in forensics or prisons. Which the APA does list that if multiple roles do become present that: "Multiple relationships can be ethical or unethical, legal or illegal, and can be avoidable, unavoidable, or mandated. They can also be planned and anticipated or unexpected. Then they can be concurrent or sequential and can also vary with different levels of involvement, from low/minimal to intense." In its fifth and final paragraph, Standard 3.05 recognizes that psychologists are sometimes required to serve in more than one role in judicial or administrative proceedings, and so cannot always avoid or fully resolve a potentially harmful multiple relationship. When a psychologist encounters such a situation, the Ethics Code focuses the psychologist on informing those affected about the change in expectations. The reasoning behind the code's language is that if a psychologist must take on a potentially harmful multiple roles, the best way to help protect those affected is to inform them of the change in circumstances.

        A comparison can be made that in each instance the therapist, the knowing individual, should politely refrain from any role relationship with any clients that adds to the therapist/client relationship. It’s not that simple always but whenever possible a therapist should make every effort to keep it that simple. Beyond that comparison, the dual relationship has a better potential for panning out with minimal detrimental effect if done with complete open communication. The more people involved the harder it is to keep the lines of communication open with everyone involved.




                                                    Works Cited and References:

• Kitchener, K. S. (1988, December). Dual Role Relationships: What Makes Them So Problematic? Journal of Counseling & Development, 67(4), 217-221. Retrieved November 6, 2016.
• Zur, O. (2012, January 11). Multiple Relationships Not Always Bad. Retrieved November 6, 2016, from http://nationalpsychologist.com/2012/01/multiple-relationships-not-always-bad/101587.html
• Behnke, S., Dr. (2004, January). Multiple relationships and APA's new Ethics Code: Values and applications. Retrieved November 6, 2016, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan04/ethics.aspx Vol. 35 No. 1 Pg. 66