1219 winter 2014 (third mission)Yu Yong Esther Chung (951067880)In order to evaluate the ethical dilemma presented in Mr. Brown's case, the two ethical principles set out in the Canadian Code of Ethics (2001) for psychologists will be examined: principle II (responsible for caring) and principle III (integrity in relationships). The main question is whether it would be unethical for the psychologist to negotiate an agreement allowing the client to pay for the therapy session by repainting the psychologist's house. Should the psychologist develop a business relationship in addition to the professional relationship he maintains with the client? If the psychologist continues to negotiate a settlement, Mr. Brown, would this cross professional boundaries? If so, what impact would this have on the psychologist and the client? Boundaries in therapeutic relationships are essential to ensure client safety and psychologists are cautioned not to develop potential dual relationships with their clients, as they may pose a conflict of interest. This could, in turn, undermine the integrity of the therapeutic relationship (Principle 3) (Canadian Psychological Society, 2001; Hearn, 2011). Additionally, psychologists are in positions of authority and power and clients are vulnerable and could be exploited. Some argue that once a psychologist crosses a professional boundary, it is the beginning of a “slippery slope” that will likely result in a greater range of boundaries for the psychologist (Zur & Lazarus, 2002). In this scenario, there are two alternative actions that the psychologist could take. The first would be to refuse Mr. Brown's offer to repaint the psychologist's house in exchange for therapy in order to prevent the professional...... middle of paper ...... from the psychologist communicating openly contact Mr. Brown about the situation and try to find a way to resolve any complications that may arise. Throughout the discussion, the psychologist must keep an accurate record of the discussions, the agreed terms of the dual relationships (professional and commercial) and the reasons justifying the negotiation of an agreement. If the psychologist feels the need, he or she could also consult other professionals regarding this situation. In conclusion, terminating therapy due to the client's inability to pay for treatment would be unnecessary and detrimental to the client. Rigid boundaries could interfere with the psychologist's relationship building, as he or she will be seen as cold and distant (Zur and Lazarus, 2002). Boundary crossing could be managed carefully so that it does not interfere with the therapeutic goal and relationship..