Mbroh, H., et al. (2020).
Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 51(3), 284–290.
Abstract
Psychologists will often encounter patients who make prejudiced comments during psychotherapy. Some psychologists may argue that the obligations to social justice require them to address these comments. Others may argue that the obligation to promote the psychotherapeutic process requires them to ignore such comments. The authors present a decision-making strategy and an intervention based on principle-based ethics for thinking through such dilemmas.
Public Significance Statement
This article identifies ethical principles psychologists should consider when deciding whether to address their patients’ prejudicial comments in psychotherapy. It also provides an intervention strategy for addressing patients’ prejudicial comments.
Here are some thoughts:
This article examines the ethical dilemmas psychologists face when patients make prejudicial comments during psychotherapy, highlighting the tension between the obligation to promote social justice (generalized beneficence) and the duty to prioritize the patient’s therapeutic well-being (beneficence and nonmaleficence). Using a principle-based ethics framework, the authors analyze various clinical scenarios to demonstrate how practitioners can weigh conflicting ethical obligations, such as respecting patient autonomy while mitigating harm to marginalized groups or the therapeutic alliance. To navigate these complex situations, the article recommends proactive education, self-reflection, and professional consultation, ultimately providing a structured, non-confrontational intervention strategy—empathizing, highlighting the personal impact of the beliefs, and inviting collaborative exploration—to address prejudice in a way that minimizes therapeutic rupture and fosters patient self-understanding.
