1
Ethics in The Prince of Tides
Ethical Code Violations in The Prince of Tides
Amy Martinez
California State University, East Bay
Ethics in The Prince of Tides
2
Dear Dr. Lowenstein,
As a fellow MFT therapist, it is my responsibility to bring to light any incidents that
occur with a colleague that may be considered unethical. As stated in the California
Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) Code of Ethics section 5
“Responsibility to Colleagues”, I need to address any potential violations of the code with
my colleagues first, treating you with “respect, courtesy, fairness, and good faith” while we
collaborate to “promote the welfare and best interest of the patient” (2011). In this letter
I’m going to bring up some of the accusations of ethical misconduct against you that have
been brought to my attention.
The first allegation that was brought to my attention was your current work with a
potential client named Tom Wingo, who is the brother of your client Savannah Wingo. It
seems that although you brought Tom into your practice to help you recall some family
history, to help aid you in assisting his sister Savannah, who is an actual client of yours, you
engaged Tom in a therapeutic relationship. Before you started your sessions with Tom you
should have given him informed consent to identify your roles in a therapist/client
relationship. In their text, Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions, Corey, Corey, and
Callanan (2007) state that informed consent “involves the rights of clients to be informed
about their therapy and to make autonomous decisions pertaining to it” which allows the
client to “become involved, educated, and a willing participant in his or her therapy” (p.
156). You failed to do this at the beginning of your sessions with Tom, and he at no point
gave you consent to treatment. Although this is a large ethical violation, it is unfortunately
not the most serious of your alleged offenses.
Ethics in The Prince of Tides
3
The next allegation against you involves your work with your actual client,
Savannah Wingo. There are multiple incidents where you broke confidentiality with your
client, which includes “disclosing confidential communications” to a third party, unless you
are “mandated or permitted by law to do so” (Corey et al., 2007, page 208). Since Savannah
was in a medical induced coma due to her suicide attempt when you contacted her family, I
can assume she did not give you permission to share any of the information that was
discussed during therapy with her family, including her mother and her brother. During
one of your “sessions” with Tom you brought up that Savannah kept referencing something
called Callonwolde, and asked him if he could guess as to what she meant by that. This is a
clear violation of your confidential agreement with Savannah (given that you actually did
do an informed consent before starting therapy with her) to not share information she
shares with third parties. In a more grievous act, you shared confidential information
about your client with your husband, giving him her name, why she was seeing you, and
information she shared with you about her upbringing. The only reason you could have
shared this information with your husband would be if you received a “signed
authorization” from the client giving you permission, according to the CAMFT Ethical
Standard 2.2 (2011). Since you proceeded to become upset when he brought this
information up during your dinner party, I can assume that you had not gotten written
consent form your client, and were aware of your breach of confidentiality.
As you can see, the list of violations you have acquired is quite extensive, and I’m
only half way through my letter. The next code that was broken involves your relationship
with Tom Wingo as an employer of you, working as a football coach for your son. If you
were in fact having a non informed pseudo therapeutic relationship with Tom, it is a
Ethics in The Prince of Tides
4
violation of the CAMFT code on unethical dual relationships. Your engagement in a
“business venture” with your patient’s family member (CAMFT Section 1.2, 2011) to coach
football exploits your relationship with him, as well as with his sister. In addition to your
breach of ethical codes, Tom has also broken ethical codes of his own, as your son is a
student of his. According to the American School Counseling Associations (ASCA) Ethical
Standards section A.4.a, Tom should “avoid dual relationships that might impair their
objectivity and increase the risk of harm to students” (2010). By conducting business with
his student’s parent, Tom clearly did not avoid a dual relationship. He also failed to
“maintain appropriate professional distance with students at all times” (American School
Counseling Association section A.4.b, 2011), and although he is not a school counselor,
there are multiple instances where appropriate distance was not used as a boundary in
their relationship. For example, after coaching practice, Tom would wrestle around in the
grass with your son. Though this does not have anything to do with your specific case, I
thought I would point it out as an example, since you do not seem to have any idea as to
what constitutes an appropriate distance with your patients, which I will address next.
On many occasions in your “sessions” with Tom, you also displayed examples of
crossing professional boundaries with your patient. For instance, you constantly touched
and sat uncomfortably close to your client, as well as thrown objects at him, which could be
considered an “exploitation of your patient” (CAMFT section 3.8, 2011). Outside of your
office, you continued to conduct an inappropriate physical relationship by slow dancing
with Tom at the party hosted by your friend, as well as taking him out to lunch and inviting
him back to your house. By performing these acts, you “engaged in a close personal
relationship with a patient. Such acts with a patient’s spouse, partner, or family member
Ethics in The Prince of Tides
5
may also be considered unethical dual relationships” (CAMFT section 1.2.1, 2011). Since
you were also seeing Tom’s sister, you violated both clauses in the ethical standard. Such
violations ultimately led you to commit your most serious offense, engaging in a sexual
relationship with your client.
Though the idea of not having sex with a client might seem like common sense, it is
such a common problem in the counseling world that the State of California has compiled
an entire booklet to help victims of counselor led sexual relationships. The title in
particular has some pretty sound advice that you might want to take to heart: “Professional
Therapy Never Includes Sex” (Zettel, 2004). This alone seems pretty self explanatory, but it
might be helpful for you to go ahead and read the entire document. It also would be a good
idea to give a copy to your client, Tom, as there is some useful information concerning his
rights if he decides to take legal action against you. Sexual intimacy with a patient is
NEVER acceptable, no matter what the circumstances.
As is my professional and ethical obligation, I have brought to you the allegations
that were presented to me by a confidential source. I would like to discuss the matter in
more detail with you as soon as possible so we can consider what is in the best interest of
your client. If you fail to meet with me, or if any of these claims prove to be true, I will be
forced to take these charges to the California Marriage and Family Therapy Review Board
for further analysis.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Colleague
6
Ethics in The Prince of Tides
References
American School Counselor Association. (2010). Ethical Standards for School Counselors
[Pamphlet]. Alexandria, VA.
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. (2011). Code of Ethics
[Pamphlet]. San Diego, CA.
Corey, G., Corey, M., & Callanan, P. (2007). Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions (7th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole
Streisand, B. (Producer), Karsch, A. S. (Producer), & Streisand, B. (Director). (1991). The
Prince of Tides [Motion Picture]. United States of America: Columbia Pictures
Zettel, C. (2004). Professional Therapy Never Includes Sex [Pamphlet]. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Consumer Affairs