Arizona Legislature Xenophobia Spreading to Professional Training Programs

[Carmen813]

I'm making a fairly provocative title, but this is a fairly serious issue. Arizona recently passed a bill that would allow Professional Counseling (i.e., graduate) students the right to refuse to serve client's if it violates their (the counselor's) religious preferences.

http://www.counseling.org/PublicPol...px?AGuid=52746d83-d2b8-4bac-810d-c3cd02bc9cd5

Mental health counseling students (and current professional counselors) are expected to be able to provide services to any client, regardless of their gender, affectual orientation, race, religious beliefs, ability, or class. Students who refuse to serve client's due to their own beliefs are dismissed from these training programs, as it goes against the counseling professional code of ethics. This is similar to the code of ethics that exists in the medical field, where doctors have a responsibility to provide treatment irregardless of personal beliefs. A large part of counseling training revolves around examining one's own biases, and how that can impact the therapeutic relationship.

Mental health counseling training programs have long had an emphasis on multicultural competence and awareness, especially since the mental health professions have a history of actually causing harm to marginalized populations. In best case scenarios lack of multicultural competence led to early termination of treatment, in worst case scenarios it contributed to suicide.

The net result of this legislation is that every school in Arizona would be stripped of their accreditation, meaning that students in these programs would be unable to obtain their professional license.

Though it may look like this bill is harmless, as it requires the student to work with a supervisor to arrange a referral, this is ultimately very harmful for the profession. In many rural areas professional counselors are rare. Referral is not always available, or appropriate. It also undermines national educational standards and efforts to further professionalize the field of counseling.

My own view on this is fairly straightforward, I believe professions have the right to regulate their membership and training programs. A professional counselor needs to be able to provide competent services to all people, and if unable to must be willing to push their own boundaries in order to grow. It is not easy, especially when sitting with someone who has views you disagree with or who has done things that are strongly against your own personal moral code. I'll be the first to admit this is difficult and a lifelong process, but I believe it is worth striving for.

I strongly recommend you give this letter a read, as it outlines just how dangerous this proposal could become:
http://www.counseling.org/PublicPolicy/PDF/HB_2565_Letter_4-20-11.pdf

 

[Infohawk]

What does this have to do with alleged xenophobia?

 

[Lemon law]

What does this have to do with alleged xenophobia?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are too dumb to understand the distinction, why should we waste time educating hopeless idiots like you who are simply charter members of the non educationable?

 

[Infohawk]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are too dumb to understand the distinction, why should we waste time educating hopeless idiots like you who are simply charter members of the non educationable?

"Non educationable"? LOL. Maybe you should have posted a response to me in the other thread instead of having a butthurt fit in this one?

 

[shortylickens]

What does this have to do with alleged xenophobia?

If you dont want America to be given away to foreigners then you are racist.

 

[Carmen813]

I am using the term xenophobia to mean "fear of other." I am not necessarily referring to legislation aimed at immigration. This is, however, a spillover effect.

 

[artikk]

This is nothing but an emotional reaction by the OP. Xenophobia not found. The OP believes that the rights of the patient take precedence over those of the counselor. I say both have equal weight and the patient can get a professional that does want to see them.

 

[sandorski]

This is nothing but an emotional reaction by the OP. Xenophobia not found. The OP believes that the rights of the patient take precedence over those of the counselor. I say both have equal weight and the patient can get a professional that does want to see them.

Ridiculous. If a Counselor can not Counsel certain people due to some Religious/Other conflict, then they should simply not be a Counselor.

 

[wuliheron]

Its a conflict of the separation of church and state and Arizona's ultra conservative government is infamous for this kind of thing. Unfortunately after decades of loosing ground with harder targets the Fundamentalists appear to be looking for softer ones to attack. I really don't know if there is much that can be done to stop them.

 

[Carmen813]

This is nothing but an emotional reaction by the OP. Xenophobia not found. The OP believes that the rights of the patient take precedence over those of the counselor. I say both have equal weight and the patient can get a professional that does want to see them.

Not sure how having an emotional reaction weakens my stance. Then again, I'm not surprised since our society places logic on a pedestal. It would impossible to not care about legislators undermining a profession I've invested years of my life and thousands of dollars studying. I would suspect that if I had no reaction that would indicate a greater problem.

Counselors are healthcare professionals, and as such, the rights of the patient ALWAYS take precedence. However, the bigger problem here is implying that counselors can pick and choose to help only those who share the same worldview that they do. It removes any responsibility from the counselor having to analyze their own biases and beliefs, and how they may impact the therapeutic relationship. It is an essential part of professional training. This would be akin to a physician refusing to treat a patient because they disagree with their religious views.

Bias in therapy has been researched thoroughly and found to be extremely harmful to clients. It has in the past been a serious factor that has led people to killing themselves, such as when psychology considered homosexuality a mental illness and tried to "cure" people. We've been down this road before and the results were uniformly bad. "Fear of others" and refusal to grow in our capacity to understand individuals different from ourselves is akin to xenophobia.

Not to mention that your argument is extremely weak when you consider how access to healthcare and mental health care professionals is granted. For many individuals there are extremely limited options. Insurance companies restrict coverage options, and in rural settings there may only be one counselor available. That is why it is essential to accept all clients.

This is nothing more than politicians exerting their power over something they have no understanding of. They are doing it in reaction to a case that was decided a few months ago, where a conservative christian student was removed from her program for refusing to treat a homosexual client. She also refused remedial training, which is standard procedure in any case like that. This type of law would make it so I could refuse to treat any client on a whim, which undermines the code of ethics MHCs have operated under for a very long time.

 

[dawp]

If you dont want America to be given away to foreigners then you are racist.

This country was built by immigrants(foreigners).

 

[artikk]

Not sure how having an emotional reaction weakens my stance. Then again, I'm not surprised since our society places logic on a pedestal. It would impossible to not care about legislators undermining a profession I've invested years of my life and thousands of dollars studying. I would suspect that if I had no reaction that would indicate a greater problem.

Counselors are healthcare professionals, and as such, the rights of the patient ALWAYS take precedence. However, the bigger problem here is implying that counselors can pick and choose to help only those who share the same worldview that they do. It removes any responsibility from the counselor having to analyze their own biases and beliefs, and how they may impact the therapeutic relationship. It is an essential part of professional training. This would be akin to a physician refusing to treat a patient because they disagree with their religious views.

Bias in therapy has been researched thoroughly and found to be extremely harmful to clients. It has in the past been a serious factor that has led people to killing themselves, such as when psychology considered homosexuality a mental illness and tried to "cure" people. We've been down this road before and the results were uniformly bad.

This is nothing more than politicians exerting their power over something they have no understanding of.

I don't know about the state level but the federal regulations seem to disagree with your assertion that patient's rights take precedence. I think there exists a difference between refusing to better well-being of an individual intentionally(violating Hipp. oath which as far as I know is non-binding anyway) and not offering alternatives and just refusing to offer the service personally. The difference is small, however.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821a.html

Congress has enacted three separate statutes to protect provider conscience rights. First, in the 1970s, the Church Amendments were enacted at various times in response to debates over whether receipt of federal funds required recipients to provide abortions or sterilizations. The Amendments also protected health care providers and other individuals from discrimination by recipients of HHS funds on the basis of their refusal, due to religious belief or moral conviction, to perform or participate in any lawful health service or research activity.

 

[theeedude]

If AZ schools don't follow ACA rules, regardless of reason, they should lose ACA accreditation. The whole point of accreditation is to certify that the school lives up to the standards of the Association. Maybe AZ "counselors" will get accredited by Family Research Council

 

[Infohawk]

I am using the term xenophobia to mean "fear of other." I am not necessarily referring to legislation aimed at immigration. This is, however, a spillover effect.

How is it a spillover effect? I'm guessing you have no proof whatsoever for that statement.

 

[Schadenfroh]

This country was built by immigrants(foreigners).

I beg to differ, clearly our ancestors were conquerers / imperialists.

 

[Carmen813]

I don't know about the state level but the federal regulations seem to disagree with your assertion that patient's rights take precedence. I think there exists a difference between refusing to better well-being of an individual intentionally(violating Hipp. oath which as far as I know is non-binding anyway) and not offering alternatives and just refusing to offer the service personally. The difference is small, however.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821a.html

You are getting caught up in federal and state law. Professional codes of ethics are substantially more stringent then what exists in written law. These codes may seem optional, but are not. They are used to guide who can enter a profession and who can call themselves a licensed counselor. The ACA Code of Ethics has been used to enable state licensing for counselors in all 50 states, undermining it severely damages the profession.

In my view, the legislature is overstepping it's bounds. You could see this as akin to a state passing a law requiring Christian churches to marry LGBT couples or a law requiring women be allowed to become priests.

As part of professional identity is understanding and adhering to established ethical guidelines. Ethics is one of the first areas covered in any counseling program. They exist to protect the public at large, as well as the profession itself. They are guidelines established by the overwhelming majority of counselors, and counseling training programs will remove students who act against them. Simple fact is that becoming a counselor requires an open and accepting mindset, and those who are unwilling to address their biases are unfit for the profession and the title "Professional Counselor." This may seem harsh, but ethical codes exist to protect the public.

Infohawk,
It's opinion. There is no way to prove it one way or the other. I suspect you know this, so I'm confused as to why you are asking for proof. Are you just trolling?

In my view, this is an example of how "fear of other" is spreading in state legislatures. The goal of this legislation was simple: to prevent counseling programs from removing a student for refusing to serve LGBT clients based on the student's religious beliefs. It was done in response to a case where a Conservative Christian student was removed from her program for refusing to serve LGBT clients. It was an example of an right leaning government rushing to protect the rights of individuals while ignoring the substantial harm this can cause to large groups. Fact is, learning to serve diverse populations and worldviews is an essential part of counselor education.

This law was thought through extremely poorly, as this legislation would essentially allow a counselor to refuse to serve any client based on "genuinely held religious beliefs" which is so ill-defined that it would be laughable if it weren't true. How do you determine if beliefs are genuine?

 

[Double Trouble]

I don't have any issue with this kind of legislation. If someone is not comfortable with a particular issue or lifestyle, or it directly conflicts with their personal religious views, then it makes perfect sense for both the patient and the councilor to have the patient seen by another councilor.

Lets say someone has a belief that homosexuality is a choice/sin/mental disorder whatever. I don't see how forcing that person to provide counseling to a gay person makes sense. The councilor probably will not be able to provide effective therapy or counseling, and in the end neither the patient nor the councilor benefits.

Counseling is not like providing service in a store or something like that, it requires emotional connection and understanding, which is difficult to achieve if what you're discussing is in direct conflict with your personal beliefs. This legislation makes perfect sense and has nothing to do with xenophobia.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

materially misleading title

 

[lopri]

Lets say someone has a belief that homosexuality is a choice/sin/mental disorder whatever. I don't see how forcing that person to provide counseling to a gay person makes sense. The councilor probably will not be able to provide effective therapy or counseling, and in the end neither the patient nor the councilor benefits.

Counseling ≠ Proselytizing or Indoctrinating

 

[PokerGuy]

Holy necro thread batman.

Double Trouble is right, it makes no sense to force someone who doesn't feel they can provide appropriate counseling to a patient to counsel them. The patient will get better care from someone else, and it's not like the ER or medical help where immediate care (or lack of it) can be the difference between life and death. The patient can simply be referred to someone else who can do a better job for them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Holy necro thread batman.

Double Trouble is right, it makes no sense to force someone who doesn't feel they can provide appropriate counseling to a patient to counsel them. The patient will get better care from someone else, and it's not like the ER or medical help where immediate care (or lack of it) can be the difference between life and death. The patient can simply be referred to someone else who can do a better job for them.

Yeah this is interesting necro material.

Anyway, the topic of counselling is still relevant. I'm not sure what the benefit of forcing someone to provide services when they are personally compromised would be. If someone is a lifelong KKK member who really really hates blacks, and then decides to get "counselling" to troll in real life and picks a black, the latter should be stuck? What beneficial purpose does that serve?

I understand the principle, but in practice terms I'm not sure how wise it is to force two people in this context to be working on a personal issue.

 

[piasabird]

This is kind of a stupid law. A lot of people that need counseling are going to be peope who made bad choices in life. They may have problems due to immorality, drug and alcohol use, divorce, Legal Issues or money issues with credit cards, stealing, cheating, etc. If you dont want to help and/or deal with people like this maybe you should become an accountant.

 

[PokerGuy]

If you dont want to help and/or deal with people like this maybe you should become an accountant.

That's not the point of the law at all. The point is, if because of your personal faith you can't provide an appropriate level of care for a patient regarding a specific issue, then you can refer that patient to someone else who can provide good care. Seems very logical.

 

[Darwin333]

This is nothing but an emotional reaction by the OP. Xenophobia not found. The OP believes that the rights of the patient take precedence over those of the counselor. I say both have equal weight and the patient can get a professional that does want to see them.

The national associations that accredits counselors disagrees with you and I am simply going to assume that they know way more about the subject than you and I combined, so I am going with whatever they think is best.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Personally I think that a counselor should be able to counsel regardless of their faith. With that said if I am a Buddhist and I need counseling and the counselor is trying to counsel me using her faith then I have no right to complain......I am free to search out a Buddhist counselor!!