Not to Google (sort of)by David Palmiter, PhD, ABPP
At this point in my career, I often find myself discussing the interaction of the practice of psychology with various electronic venues. Regarding ethics and risk management, I would offer this: The scripts are the same; only the stages are different. Some of these electronic stages are bombastic, provocative and outrageously popular, which can distract us from the familiarity of the scripts being acted out. For instance, I recently learned of cases of early career psychologists communicating on dating sites with anonymous parties (a popular forum in part because it allows parties to withhold their identities until they feel comfortable), only to discover that the other person was a current or past client. While this is a new stage, the script is similar to the one that rural psychologists fine-tuned years ago for handling a surprising multiple relationship (Schank and Skovholt, 1997, discuss managing such overlapping relationships). Today I had a friendly debate with a colleague in another state about whether one should allow comments when writing a blog. While we agreed that one should screen all comments to blogs before posting them, my colleague argued that receiving such comments, even without publishing them, might establish a duty. While I agreed with her, I also suggested that the risk was no different from the one that exists when we allow the public to leave messages on our voice mail.
Yes, Google is a (relatively) new and enormously popular stage. But, we’ve had ways of clandestinely learning about other people long before Google existed, such as looking up public records at courthouses or libraries, hiring detectives to observe public behaviors. Sure, Google is more easily accessible and usually does not involve fees, but isn’t the script similar?
Would it be okay to hire a detective to observe a client’s public behavior and to report back to us? Clearly there could be advantages, such as those advanced by my friend, Dr. Cohen. I won’t say it is always right or always wrong to hire a detective, just as I won’t make a similar declaration regarding Google searching. For me, the key issue, sans emergency, is whether informed consent has been acquired. Hence the qualifier “sort of” in the title. In trying to strike a balance between covering the issues and brevity, this is what I cover in my intake paperwork regarding electronic venues:
I have a website (www.helpingfamilies. com), a Twitter page (www.twitter.com/ HelpingParents), and a blog (www.hecticparents. com). My clients are welcome to visit these pages, which contain information and guidance.
It is my practice not to do Internet searches on my clients, but to rely exclusively on the information my clients have provided. However, in an instance of significant safety or risk, I reserve the right to use the Internet as a source of information. While this circumstance would be highly unusual, I am mentioning it in order to provide you the most comprehensive level of informed consent.
Unless the communication is very simple and is not sensitive, I prefer to not communicate through e-mail. My preference is born of a desire to protect the confidentiality of our communications.You also may find I have a presence on social networking sites. Because I take every reasonable step in my power to be of maximum service to you, I do not accept invitations from current or past clients to network on these sites. The collective experience of my field, as well as my personal experience, is that psychologists are more likely to be of help to their clients if they do not establish relationships outside of the office.
If you have questions or concerns about any of these issues, please let me know.
So, I really do not disagree with Dr. Cohen. I think.
Reference
Schank, J. A., & Skovholt, T. M. (1997). Dual-relationship dilemmas of rural and small-community psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 44-49.
