The term "dual relationships" may be misleading because in fact, some.
relationships that are shared by a counselor and a client are multiple in nature.
(Corey, Corey, 2002). In my research, I found that there are varying opinions about.
the value or detriment of dual or multiple relationships. I also found that within .
certain systems you may find varying levels of training that affect the potential for.
dual relationships (Zirkle, 2002), therefore increasing more of a possibility of a dual .
relationship on one level of counseling than on another. There exist a multiple code.
of ethics for the numerous specialties within the field of counseling. (Zirkel, 2002).
Herlihy and Remley, 1995, discuss the confusion that this multiple code of ethics.
produces within a certain field. On one level the therapist or clinical psychologist.
understands and practices the avoidance of dual relationships. On another level a.
non-professional generally operating in the same capacity, just without licensure, is.
practicing with a somewhat different code of ethics, especially as it pertains to .
dual relationships. This seems to be present because of the lack of accountability with.
a counselor that is not licensed. Zirkle (2002) suggest that both professional and.
non-professionals be guided by a broader idea of "standard of care," based upon ethical.
principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, justice and fidelity that were.
identified by Kitcheners (1984). .
There is an overall consensus that the potential for harm and exploitation.
does exist in the embodiment of dual relationships. However, at the same time .
potential for harm exists in many areas of counseling to the same degree, such as .
In this paper I will explore various situations where a dual or multiple .
relationship could and has happened and the impact or potential harm and, in some.
cases, benefits to a client. .
This is a look at the social work profession, which is also rooted in a set of core .