The Developmental Debate on Gender Identification

The Developmental Debate on Gender Identification

There is debate among developmental theorists as to what influences thoughts and behavior related to gender. For example, what influences a child to play with a doll versus a truck, or what influences a child to engage in active play versus passive play? Do we make these choices because of innate desires determined by biological factors, or is it because we have become socially conditioned to make certain choices? Review and identify the positions that developmental theorists take regarding the influences of gender, and describe what you believe influences gender identity most. Elaborate on your answer.

Course Paper Thesis Outline Annotated Bibliography

Your thesis statement may not refer to yourself, your paper, or your readers. Simply state the point that your paper will argue or demonstrate. Your outline must have an introduction that includes your thesis statement, two or more supporting main points with at least two pieces of evidence (statistics, data, or source quotes) for each of those points, and a conclusion that sums up the main supporting points and restates your thesis. Your annotated bibliography must include a citation, a summary, an analysis, and the relevance of at least four scholarly sources in APA Format.

Content for Outline Annotated Bibliography:

Read the ethical dilemma and analyze applying the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Decision Making Model as outlined in the document, “A Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making.”

 

Ethical Dilemma 

Amanda, a counselor in a public high school, decides to start a “relationship skills” group for juniors and seniors. She posts an advertisement for the group in the school counseling office.  Her advertisement provides minimal information including the name of the group, the date and time of the first meeting and the school counseling office secretary is listed as the contact. Amanda instructs the secretary for the counseling office to admit the first nine students who call to enroll. The secretary adds students to the group as they call in irrespective of the nature of their problems, their personal goals for the group or previous experience with group.

At the first meeting, nine students show up including seven females and two males.  Having never talked with or met the students before, Amanda begins by asking them to share why they have come to the group. One of the males, Paul, shares that he was new to the high school this year, and had just been released from a detention center after serving one year for domestic violence. Paul states that he has “anger issues” especially directed at “women”.  At break, five of the females leave and do not return to the group. Paul breaks down in the group and states that he is going to kill himself when he gets home.

A Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making Holly Forester-Miller, Ph.D. Thomas Davis, Ph.D.

Copyright © 1996, American Counseling Association. A free publication of the American Counseling Association promoting ethical counseling practice in service to the public. — Printed and bound copies may be purchased in quantity for a nominal fee from the Online Resource Catalog or by calling the ACA Distribution Center at 800.422.2648.

ACA grants reproduction rights to libraries, researchers and teachers who wish to copy all or part of the contents of this document for scholarly purposes provided that no fee for the use or possession of such copies is charged to the ultimate consumer of the copies. Proper citation to ACA must be given.

Introduction Counselors are often faced with situations which require sound ethical decision making ability. Determining the appropriate course to take when faced with a difficult ethical dilemma can be a challenge. To assist ACA members in meeting this challenge, the ACA Ethics Committee has developed A Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. The intent of this document is to offer professional counselors a framework for sound ethical decision making. The following will address both guiding principles that are globally valuable in ethical decision making, and a model that professionals can utilize as they address ethical questions in their work.

Moral Principles Kitchener (1984) has identified five moral principles that are viewed as the cornerstone of our ethical guidelines. Ethical guidelines can not address all situations that a counselor is forced to confront. Reviewing these ethical principles which are at the foundation of the guidelines often helps to clarify the issues involved in a given situation. The five principles, autonomy, justice, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and fidelity are each absolute truths in and of themselves. By exploring the dilemma in regards to these principles one may come to a better understanding of the conflicting issues.

1. Autonomy is the principle that addresses the concept of independence. The essence of this principle is allowing an individual the freedom of choice and action. It addresses the responsibility of the counselor to encourage clients, when appropriate, to make their own decisions and to act on their own values. There are two important considerations in encouraging clients to be autonomous. First, helping the client to understand how their decisions and their values may or may not be received within the context of the society in which they live, and how they may impinge on the rights of others. The second consideration is related to the client’s ability to make sound and rational decisions. Persons not capable of making competent choices, such as children, and some individuals with mental handicaps, should not be allowed to act on decisions that could harm themselves or others.

 

 

2. Nonmaleficence is the concept of not causing harm to others. Often explained as “above all do no harm”, this principle is considered by some to be the most critical of all the principles, even though theoretically they are all of equal weight (Kitchener, 1984; Rosenbaum, 1982; Stadler, 1986). This principle reflects both the idea of not inflicting intentional harm, and not engaging in actions that risk harming others (Forester-Miller & Rubenstein, 1992).

3. Beneficence reflects the counselor’s responsibility to contribute to the welfare of the client. Simply stated it means to do good, to be proactive and also to prevent harm when possible (Forester-Miller & Rubenstein, 1992).

4. Justice does not mean treating all individuals the same. Kitchener (1984) points out that the formal meaning of justice is “treating equals equally and unequals unequally but in proportion to their relevant differences” (p.49). If an individual is to be treated differently, the counselor needs to be able to offer a rationale that explains the necessity and appropriateness of treating this individual differently.

5. Fidelity involves the notions of loyalty, faithfulness, and honoring commitments. Clients must be able to trust the counselor and have faith in the therapeutic relationship if growth is to occur. Therefore, the counselor must take care not to threaten the therapeutic relationship nor to leave obligations unfulfilled.

When exploring an ethical dilemma, you need to examine the situation and see how each of the above principles may relate to that particular case. At times this alone will clarify the issues enough that the means for resolving the dilemma will become obvious to you. In more complicated cases it is helpful to be able to work through the steps of an ethical decision making model, and to assess which of these moral principles may be in conflict.

Ethical Decision Making Model We have incorporated the work of Van Hoose and Paradise (1979), Kitchener (1984), Stadler (1986), Haas and Malouf (1989), Forester-Miller and Rubenstein (1992), and Sileo and Kopala (1993) into a practical, sequential, seven step, ethical decision making model. A description and discussion of the steps follows.

1. Identify the Problem. Gather as much information as you can that will illuminate the situation. In doing so, it is important to be as specific and objective as possible. Writing ideas on paper may help you gain clarity. Outline the facts, separating out innuendos, assumptions, hypotheses, or suspicions. There are several questions you can ask yourself: Is it an ethical, legal, professional, or clinical problem? Is it a combination of more than one of these? If a legal question exists, seek legal advice. Other questions that it may be useful to ask yourself are: Is the issue related to me and what I am or am not doing? Is it related to a client and/or the client’s significant others and what they are or are not doing? Is it related to the institution or agency and their policies and procedures? If the problem can be resolved by implementing a policy of an institution or agency, you can look to the agency’s guidelines. It is good to remember that dilemmas you face are often complex, so a

 

 

useful guideline is to examine the problem from several perspectives and avoid searching for a simplistic solution.

2. Apply the ACA Code of Ethics. After you have clarified the problem, refer to the Code of Ethics (ACA, 2005) to see if the issue is addressed there. If there is an applicable standard or several standards and they are specific and clear, following the course of action indicated should lead to a resolution of the problem. To be able to apply the ethical standards, it is essential that you have read them carefully and that you understand their implications. If the problem is more complex and a resolution does not seem apparent, then you probably have a true ethical dilemma and need to proceed with further steps in the ethical decision making process.

3. Determine the nature and dimensions of the dilemma. There are several avenues to follow in order to ensure that you have examined the problem in all its various dimensions.

o Consider the moral principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, justice, and fidelity. Decide which principles apply to the specific situation, and determine which principle takes priority for you in this case. In theory, each principle is of equal value, which means that it is your challenge to determine the priorities when two or more of them are in conflict.

o Review the relevant professional literature to ensure that you are using the most current professional thinking in reaching a decision.

o Consult with experienced professional colleagues and/or supervisors. As they review with you the information you have gathered, they may see other issues that are relevant or provide a perspective you have not considered. They may also be able to identify aspects of the dilemma that you are not viewing objectively.

o Consult your state or national professional associations to see if they can provide help with the dilemma.

4. Generate potential courses of action. Brainstorm as many possible courses of action as possible. Be creative and consider all options. If possible, enlist the assistance of at least one colleague to help you generate options.

5. Consider the potential consequences of all options and determine a course of action. Considering the information you have gathered and the priorities you have set, evaluate each option and assess the potential consequences for all the parties involved. Ponder the implications of each course of action for the client, for others who will be effected, and for yourself as a counselor. Eliminate the options that clearly do not give the desired results or cause even more problematic consequences. Review the remaining options to determine which option or

 

 

combination of options best fits the situation and addresses the priorities you have identified.

6. Evaluate the selected course of action. Review the selected course of action to see if it presents any new ethical considerations. Stadler (1986) suggests applying three simple tests to the selected course of action to ensure that it is appropriate. In applying the test of justice, assess your own sense of fairness by determining whether you would treat others the same in this situation. For the test of publicity, ask yourself whether you would want your behavior reported in the press. The test of universality asks you to assess whether you could recommend the same course of action to another counselor in the same situation. If the course of action you have selected seems to present new ethical issues, then you’ll need to go back to the beginning and reevaluate each step of the process. Perhaps you have chosen the wrong option or you might have identified the problem incorrectly. If you can answer in the affirmative to each of the questions suggested by Stadler (thus passing the tests of justice, publicity, and universality) and you are satisfied that you have selected an appropriate course of action, then you are ready to move on to implementation.

7. Implement the course of action. Taking the appropriate action in an ethical dilemma is often difficult. The final step involves strengthening your ego to allow you to carry out your plan. After implementing your course of action, it is good practice to follow up on the situation to assess whether your actions had the anticipated effect and consequences.

The Ethical Decision Making Model at a Glance

1. Identify the problem. 2. Apply the ACA Code of Ethics. 3. Determine the nature and dimensions of the dilemma. 4. Generate potential courses of action. 5. Consider the potential consequences of all options, choose a course of action. 6. Evaluate the selected course of action. 7. Implement the course of action.

It is important to realize that different professionals may implement different courses of action in the same situation. There is rarely one right answer to a complex ethical dilemma. However, if you follow a systematic model, you can be assured that you will be able to give a professional explanation for the course of action you chose. Van Hoose and Paradise (1979) suggest that a counselor “is probably acting in an ethically responsible way concerning a client if (1) he or she has maintained personal and professional honesty, coupled with (2) the best interests of the client, (3) without malice or personal

 

 

gain, and (4) can justify his or her actions as the best judgment of what should be done based upon the current state of the profession” (p.58). Following this model will help to ensure that all four of these conditions have been met.

References

American Counseling Association (2005). Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Forester-Miller, H. & Rubenstein, R.L. (1992). Group Counseling: Ethics and Professional Issues. In D. Capuzzi & D. R. Gross (Eds.) Introduction to Group Counseling (307-323). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co.

Haas, L.J. & Malouf, J.L. (1989). Keeping up the good work: A practitioner’s guide to mental health ethics. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange, Inc.

Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 12(3), 43-55.

Rosenbaum, M. (1982). Ethical problems of Group Psychotherapy. In M. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Ethics and values in psychotherapy: A guidebook (237-257). New York: Free Press.

Sileo, F. & Kopala, M. (1993). An A-B-C-D-E worksheet for promoting beneficence when considering ethical issues. Counseling and Values, 37, 89-95.

Stadler, H. A. (1986). Making hard choices: Clarifying controversial ethical issues. Counseling & Human Development, 19, 1-10.

Van Hoose, W.H. (1980). Ethics and counseling. Counseling & Human Development, 13(1), 1-12.

Van Hoose, W.H. & Paradise, L.V. (1979). Ethics in counseling and psychotherapy: Perspectives in issues and decision-making. Cranston, RI: Carroll Press.

Assignment Case Collaboration Meeting

Collaboration is a key part of social work practice. Most MSW professionals engage in these processes during the postgraduate practice years that each state requires before their licensing moves from supervised to independent status. Even beyond those requirements, peer consultation and collaboration are key aspects of most social work practice settings.

For this Assignment, your Instructor has paired you with a consultation colleague. Imagine that you and your colleague are working with the client featured in the case study your Instructor assigned. Your task is to provide a diagnosis and present your findings in the Week 7 Discussion.

Your diagnosis can come from any part of the DSM-5, so frequent communication and research with your colleague may be needed. Your colleague is there to help you think out, consult on, challenge, research, and polish your process before you record and post your own final analysis of this case in Week 7.

The collaboration that begins in this Assignment is intended to provide a safe venue for developing your differential diagnosis and case discussion skills with your colleague. This week you meet with your assigned partner at least once via Collaborate Ultra and begin considering the assigned case. In this Assignment, you describe that meeting and any initial analysis of the case.

To prepare:

  • Using the case study provided to you by your instructor.
  • Consult the Case Collaboration Meeting Guidelines document found in the Learning Resources.
  • Read ahead to the Week 7 Discussion instructions so that you can plan and reflect accordingly.

Note: In the Week 7 Discussion, you make your final findings presentation as an individual, not with your partner.

By Day 7

Submit a 1- to 2-page paper in which you describe your team meeting. In your write-up, make sure to address the following:

  • Describe the quality of your working relationship with your colleague. ( The Quality of the working relationships went really well, very easy going, open-minded and productive collaborate teamwork working with my colleagues so far)
    • Critically reflect on strengths of collaborative relationship and areas for improvement.
  • Describe your case in 100–150 words
  • Identify the red flags in your case study to be further evaluated. ( Red flags were Alcohol, suicidal thoughts, abuse, overdose, family history, cannot keep a job longer than 3 years, and attempted suicide. )
  • Outline your and your partner’s plan for further research and consultation, identifying specific tasks that you are each doing in this regard. ( I will be researching and working on the possibility of a diagnosis of Bipolar 2 and studying The case of Sigmund more thoroughly. Toni will be working on and researching BIpolar 1 and Somang will be working on possible other diagnoses such as major depression and attachment disorders. )
  • Identify days/times you have agreed to meet together, including the date planned to complete the CFI interview required for the Week 5 Assignment. We have agreed and decided to meet again via ultra collaborative or via email with our findings and research by Monday at 9 am September 23rd. IF that does not work due to one being out of town collaboration will be via email.
  • 1

     

    3

    Dr. Diane Rullo

    CASE of Sigmund

    INTAKE DATE: FEBRUARY 2019

    DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

    This is a voluntary intake for this 53 year old Jewish male. Sigmund has had several psychiatric hospitalizations in the past. Sigmund has been married for 29 years and has been separated from his wife for the past ten months. He has been living alone for the past five months. His wife and three daughters live two blocks from him. Sigmund has had difficulty in jobs and has not been at any job longer than three years.

     

    CHIEF COMPLAINT:

    “I miss my family and do not want to live without them”.

     

    HISTORY OF ILLNESS:

    Sigmund reports first seeking psychiatric treatment when he was sixteen years old. He was prescribed anti-depressants, but does not remember what kind. Since they helped his mood he remained on anti-depressants for several years. In his late teens he began drinking. His use of alcohol continued into his early thirties. At thirty four years old he attempted suicide after his wife and children left him. He was hospitalized in a psychiatric unit for thirty days. At that time Sigmund was put on lithium, with continued successful results for several years, resulting in reconciliation.

    In December 2018 Sigmund returned to his psychiatrist because he was becoming depressed again, feeling sad, fearful and suicidal. He was given Parnate. Soon after, both Sigmund and the psychiatrist did not think this was working very well and the psychiatrist added Ritalin to his medication regiment. During the next three months Sigmund felt on top of the world sometimes lasting for 10 days. He then would have angry outbursts. His wife asked him to leave the home. He then took an overdose of Klonopin. Sigmund was then prescribed ECT (shock treatment). Sigmund returned home after the shock treatment but reported that it was an inhumane experience and felt anger towards his wife believing she forced him to receive ECT to return home.

    Sigmund continued on anti-depressants and lithium. Mrs. Sigmund was getting continuously concerned about their financial state because Sigmund would constantly be buying big items that they could not afford. They would have arguments about this all the time. By the end of August he was asked to leave his home again because he used pills as a suicidal gesture. He began drinking again to cope with the separation. This use and behavior continued up to his current presentation for intake.

     

    PSYCHOSOCIAL HISTORY:

    Sigmund reports growing up as tumultuous. His mother beat him and would lock him out of the house when she became angry. His mother separated from his father on several occasions and sometimes would throw Sigmund out of the house with the father. His mother made all the decisions and his father played a more passive role. Both parents would often have physical fights and Sigmund would try to break up the fighting from as early as he can remember.

    Sigmund is the only child from his parents union. He has an older brother from his mother’s previous marriage. Sigmund does not have any contact with his brother. Sigmund was initially considered an underachiever in the early years of school. He had trouble being in fights with other kids because they use to make fun of his wrinkled clothes. Sigmund always wanted to be a doctor. He spent the following five years after college graduation taking courses but never completed his graduate studies.

    Sigmund has no legal history. He worked in the family business through high school and college. He became a project coordinator at his next job. He stayed there three years.

     

    MEDICAL HISTORY:

    Sigmund states he currently takes Synthroid for a thyroid problem and this helps him keep his weight down.

     

    FAMILY ISSUES AND DYNAMICS:

    Sigmund was first married at age twenty one years old. He reports not loving his first wife but liked the stability of her family and asked her to marry him. They spent one year together. He physically abused her from the beginning of their marriage. Mrs. Sigmund the first had an affair that ended the marriage. Mrs. Sigmund reports Sigmund had spoken to her several times about getting involved with other men for sexual pleasure with his knowledge and she states she just followed through with his wishes. They had no children.

    Six months after his first divorce Sigmund married again. He reports not loving his second wife but thought it was better to be married. The second Mrs. Sigmund had one child from a previous marriage who Sigmund adopted. They had two other children.

    The first ten years of their marriage Sigmund reports physically abusing his wife. He reports hitting the oldest child once. He stopped the physical abuse when Mrs. Sigmund asked for a divorce the first time. Sigmund reports he always wants people around him. He believed his wife was becoming more distant from him over the past several years which he could not take. Their fighting increased, although he would not become physical with her now.

     

    MENTAL STATUS EXAM:

    Sigmund presents as a neatly dressed male who appears younger than his stated age. His hair is a bit disheveled. His nails are neatly groomed. Facial expressions are appropriate to thought content. Motor activity is appropriate. Thoughts are logical and organized. There is no evidence of hallucinations. Sigmund admits to a history of suicidal ideation, gestures and attempts. His mood is depressed. During the interview Sigmund talked fast. Sigmund is oriented to time, place and person. His intelligence appears above average.

Competency And Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity

The media seems to frequently portray cases of NGRI. However, while 30% of felony cases may raise insanity as a possible defense; this approach most often does not even make it to trial. Moreover, defendants who attempt insanity pleas will serve longer sentences than those convicted criminally, and they will serve these sentences in hospitals that closely resemble prisons.

In this week’s Assignment, you will explore forensic risk assessments that will first address whether the suspect in the School Shooter case has the mental capacity to stand trial. You will then use the Learning Resources to support your position as to whether the suspect could be legally determined to be insane.

To prepare

  • Review the “School Shooter” podcast.
  • Review the Learning Resources, paying particular attention to the Competence Assessment for standing trial for defendants with mental retardation (CAST-MR) by Simpson.

Assignment
In a 2- to 3-page paper:

  • Describe two forensic risk assessment instruments that may be used by the forensic professional when assessing the school shooter for competency to stand trial. Justify your selection of these instruments utilizing the CAST-MR and other resources.
  • Explain your position on whether you believe the defendant in the case study was legally insane at the time of the offense. Justify your position using the CAST- MR as well as any other resources.

RESCOURCES

Blumoff, T.Y. (2015). Rationality, insanity, and the insanity defense: Reflections on the limits of reason. Law & Psychology Review, 39, 161–204. Retrieved from http://www.law.ua.edu/lawpsychology/
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Borum, R., Cornell, D. G., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. R. (2010). What can be done about school shootings? A review of the evidence. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 27–37. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357620
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Lurigio, A. J. (2016). ‘It’s not my fault’: New conceptual frameworks for understanding the insanity defense. [Review of the book The matrix of insanity in modern criminal law, by G. Hallevy]. PsycCritiques61(16). doi:10.1037/a0040128
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

National Association of School Psychologists, & National Association of School Resource Officers. (2014). Best practice considerations for schools in active shooter and other armed assailant drills. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/Documents/Research and Policy/Advocacy Resources/BP_Armed_Assailant_Drills.pdf

Best practice considerations for schools in active shooter and other armed assailant drills, NASP, NASRO (2014). Reprinted by permission of NASP via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Roesch, R., Zapf, P. A., Golding, S. L., & Skeem, J. L. (2014). Defining and assessing competency to stand trial. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/08/15/Defining_and_Assessing_Competency_to_Stand_Trial.pdf 

Roesch, R. et al. (2014). Defining and assessing competency to stand trial. Retrieved from: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/08/15/Defining_and_Assessing_Competency_to_Stand_Trial.pdf​

Simpson, P. (n.d.). Competence assessment for standing trial for defendants with mental retardation (CAST-MR). Retrieved September 12, 2016, from http://www.drpaulsimpson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Forensic-Tests.pdf 

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2016b). School shooter podcast [Audio file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.