Behnke, S. H., Thomas, J. T., et al. (2023).
Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 54(2), 135–146.
Abstract
A client’s disclosure of sexual contact with a previous treating psychologist raises challenging ethical, legal, and clinical considerations. Following a vignette that describes a psychologist’s thoughtful anticipation of such a disclosure by amending his informed consent form to allow reporting of previous sexual contact with a psychotherapist, these articles explore how the American Psychological Association’s Ethics Code, jurisdictional laws, and clinical considerations contribute to a psychologist’s decision-making in such a circumstance. The articles discuss ways to integrate ethics, law, and clinical care in the psychologist’s response to the client’s disclosure.
Public Significance Statement—This article addresses psychologist-client sexual contact. This issue is significant to promote client autonomy, to protect the public, and to enhance the ethics and integrity of the profession.
Here are some thoughts:
This article offers a rich, multidimensional exploration of a complex ethical dilemma: how a current treating psychologist should respond when a client discloses sexual contact with a previous therapist. Rather than presenting a single authoritative stance, the article thoughtfully weaves together multiple, diverse perspectives—ethical, legal, clinical, feminist, and philosophical—demonstrating the nuanced reality of ethical decision-making in psychology.
Stephen Behnke grounds the discussion in the APA Ethics Code and jurisdictional law, introducing a pragmatic “three-door” framework (client consent, legal mandate, legal permission) to guide disclosure decisions.
Janet Thomas builds on this by emphasizing the primacy of the therapeutic alliance and warning against well-intentioned but potentially coercive practices that prioritize professional or societal agendas over the client’s healing process.
Lenore Walker adds a critical feminist and trauma-informed lens, arguing that mandatory reporting—even if framed as protective—can retraumatize survivors by stripping them of autonomy, echoing broader concerns about institutional betrayal.
Finally, David DeMatteo introduces a philosophical dimension, contrasting deontological (duty-based) and teleological (consequence-based) ethics to illustrate how competing moral frameworks can lead to divergent conclusions in the absence of clear legal mandates. Together, these perspectives underscore that ethical practice is not merely about rule-following but requires ongoing reflection, contextual awareness, and a deep commitment to client self-determination.
The article thus models integrative ethical reasoning—balancing professional responsibility with clinical sensitivity, legal compliance with human dignity, and societal protection with individual healing.
