Reference no: EM133408414

Rosenberg and Schwartz spearheaded the movement to a decision-making process that the 2022 Ethical Code for Behavior Analysts adopted. Think about how the topics and codes may present a "gray" area to decipher when discerning between what is ethically right and what is ethically wrong.

You will either:
- Report a real-life ethical dilemma you or a colleague have experienced
- Think of an original ethical dilemma

Use the Rosenberg and Schwartz article and address Steps 1 - 3 (see Figure 1).
Be sure to be familiar with the decision-making process. Although this assignment is presented at this time, it is best to continue to draft ideas and scenarios until you are exposed to most of the content. Once you feel prepared, write a clear and well-defined scenario.

Directions:
1. General title of the discussion

2. The scenario: The scenario should present an obvious ethical dilemma with specific contextual information, such as important characteristics of the individual, setting, relevant relationships between individuals, etc. that will allow adequate examination of the scenario.

3. Step 1: Why does this trigger your ethical radar?
? Be sure to follow the prompts in step 1, identifying the dilemma, the possible guiding BACB code, and any personal values or biases you bring to the scenario.
? It is fine to use more than one slide, if necessary.
? Example:
- Despite being one of the most qualified swim instructors for this population, the swim coach would be entering a dual relationship with the family (BACB Code 1.11)
- Arya's behavior analytic training and background has instilled adherence to the Code and the BA verbal community has cautioned against multiple relationships with the rationale that it could impair objectivity and blur lines.
- Arya also wants to advance values, ethics, and principles of the profession.

4. Step 2: Brainstorm Solutions
? Derive at least (2) different conclusions, one based solely on the code and another based on the context of the situation
? Example:
- BACB Code 1.11 ". . . behavior analysts avoid entering into or creating multiple relationships" "
". . . seek to resolve the multiple relationship"

- Other solution
Honor the request under specific conditions designed for the protectionof the learner, the BCBA, and the profession (i.e., clear delineation and definition of both roles, transparent and well-documented billing procedures).

Can still adhere to code 1.11 "behavior analysts develop appropriate safeguards to identify and avoid conflicts of interest in compliance with the Code and develop a plan to eventually resolve the multiple relationship. Behavior analysts document all actions taken in this circumstance and the eventual outcomes."

5. Step 3: Evaluate the Solutions
? Compare and contrast your two solutions and highlight at least 3 - 5 pros and cons for each solution. Consider any relevant variables listed in Figure 1, such as safety, dignity, outcomes, relationships, culture, etc.
? Example:
- Dual relationship is avoided.
* Relationship with the parents may be harmed
* Missed opportunity to disseminate and expand profession's reach
* Child still without skills to swim

- Dual relationship is entered
- Risk of impaired objectivity
- Role confusion
- Unethical billing possibilities
- Socially valid
- Opportunities for intersection of interventions addressing safety, independence, and communication

6. Conclusion
- Select the outcome you chose, highlighting the key elements for your decision.