Discussion
The case of Vidar and Jana leaves me conflicted. Being unable to pay for therapeutic services, Jana proposes the services of her husband’s company as payment for Vidar’s work (Corey, Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 2014). On the one hand, there are no specific instructions that would prevent Vidar from refusing the proposal based on professional ethics (Reamer, 2006). In fact, if Vidar provides therapy in a country that is accepting of bartering, he might agree to the proposal with no negative outcomes. The act of barter would have to be officially established through a written agreement of all the involved parties, but there is nothing wrong with it. Perhaps it is even mutually beneficial because Jana would continue to receive therapy, while Vidar would still receive the same benefit from pool cleaning services.
On the other hand, this exchange creates multiple relationships and boundaries crossings that would happen otherwise. This could potentially compromise the results that Vidar achieved through previous sessions with Jana. This is a serious issue and has to be dealt with delicately and with great understanding. The textbook presents an alternative solution of establishing an agreement that Jana would instead provide services for a non-profit organization that both parties would agree on.
This solution also has great benefits. The first is that multiple relationships are not created through this exchange. Vidar does not directly benefit from Jana in this scenario. The second benefit comes from the fact that Jana’s actions would serve to benefit people in need, which is a morally positive outcome.
Personally, I would feel uncomfortable in this scenario. I believe that barter is a valid way of receiving goods and services, especially when it is proposed to me as an option. People should be able to use their skills and possessions to pay for other goods and services. However, in this case, I would avoid anything that would provide a direct benefit for me. Even if a client proposed a service that I found beneficial, I would expect this proposal to affect the trust established between the counselor and the client.
The multiple relationships aspect of the proposal is also unwanted, and I can see it negatively affecting my work with the client. For example, if the client proposes car maintenance services of their brother’s garage as payment for the following three sessions, I would see it as unacceptable.
Despite my beliefs about bartering, they are overshadowed by the fact that I refuse to cross boundaries when it comes to establishing relationships with the relatives and loved ones of clients, especially when they are based on the exchange of goods and services. I could see myself arranging a situation where the client would provide services for charity, community service, or other non-profit third parties that bring positive outcomes for the community. As previously mentioned, this would remove a lot of negative elements that were present in the original proposal.
Conclusion
The presented case study ponders a difficult situation to manage. It all depends on the counselor to weigh the pros and cons of the situation, address the ethical concerns and potential issues that they might bring, and perhaps to find an alternative solution that would be agreed upon by both parties. My personal beliefs force me to consider alternative solutions to the issue. However, I could never refuse it outright due to my dedication to the client.
References
Corey, G., Corey, M., Corey, C., & Callanan, P. (2014). Issues and ethics in the helping professions (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Brooks Cole.
Reamer, F. (2006). Ethical standards in social work: A review of the NASW code of ethics. Washington, DC: NASW Press.