Tangled Relationships

Boundary Issues and Dual Relationships in the Human Services

Frederic G. Reamer

• Publisher: Columbia University Press
• Year: 2001
• eBook ISBN: 9780231506182
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Lavoro in ambito sociale

Should a therapist counsel a former lover or accept a client's gift? If so, has a boundary been crossed? Some boundary issues, like beginning a sexual relationship with a client, are obvious pitfalls to avoid, but what about more subtle issues, like hugging a client or disclosing personal information to a client? What are the boundaries of maintaining a friendship with a former client or the relative of a client? When do conflicts of interest overburden the client-practitioner relationship?

Frederic Reamer, a leading authority on professional ethics, offers a definitive and up-to-date analysis of boundary issues, a rapidly emerging topic in the field of human services. One of the only works in the field to provide a conceptual framework for the dual relationship between practitioner and client, this book provides an in-depth look at the complex forms these relationships take. It also gives practical risk-management models to aid human service professionals in the prevention of problematic situations and the managing of dual relationships. Reamer examines the ethics involving intimate and sexual relationships with clients and former clients, practitioners' self-disclosure, giving and receiving favors and gifts, bartering for services, and unavoidable and unanticipated circumstances such as social encounters and geographical proximity. Case vignettes that help illustrate important points are also included in each chapter.

1	Boundary Issues and Dual Relationships: Key Concepts

In recent years, especially since the early 1980s, human service professionals have developed an increasingly mature grasp of ethical issues. Since then, the professional literature has expanded markedly with respect to identifying ethical conflicts and dilemmas in practice; developing conceptual frameworks and protocols for ethical decision making when professional duties conflict; and formulating risk-management strategies to avoid ethics-related negligence and ethical misconduct (Austin, Moline, and Williams 1990; Berliner 1989; Bersoff 1999; Besharov 1985; Bullis 1995; Corey, Corey, and Callanan 1997; Herlihy and Corey 1992; Loewenberg and Dolgoff 1996; Reamer 1980, 1982, 1990, 1994a, 1995a, 1998a, 1999; Rhodes 1986).

Clearly, ethical issues related to professional boundaries are among the most problematic and challenging (Congress 1996; Jayaratne, Croxton, and Mattison 1997; Kagle and Giebelhausen 1994; Reamer in press; StromGottfried 1999). Briefly, boundary issues arise when human service professionals encounter actual or potential conflicts between their professional duties and their social, sexual, religious, or business relationships (St. Germaine 1993, 1996). As I will explore more fully later, not all boundary issues are necessarily problematic or unethical, but many are. My principal goal is to explore the range of boundary issues in the human services, develop criteria to help professionals distinguish between boundary issues that are and are not problematic, and present guidelines to help practitioners manage boundary issues and risks that arise in practice.

Boundary Issues in the Human Services

Human service professionals—be they clinicians (social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, psychiatric nurses), community organizers, policy makers, supervisors, researchers, administrators, or educators—often encounter circumstances that pose actual or potential boundary issues. Boundary issues occur when practitioners face potential conflicts of interest stemming from what have become known as dual or multiple relationships. According to Kagle and Giebelhausen (1994), “A professional enters into a dual relationship whenever he or she assumes a second role with a client, becoming social worker and friend, employer, teacher, business associate, family member, or sex partner. A practitioner can engage in a dual relationship whether the second relationship begins before, during, or after the social work relationship” (213). Dual relationships occur primarily between human service professionals and their current or former clients and between professionals and their colleagues (including supervisees, trainees, and students).

Historically, human service professionals have not generated clear guidelines regarding boundaries for use in practice. This is partly because the broader subject of professional ethics—to which the topic of boundaries is closely tied—did not begin to receive serious attention in the scholarly and professional literature until the late 1970s and early 1980s. In addition, the human service field, starting with Freud, is rife with mixed messages related to boundaries and dual relationships (Gutheil and Gabbard 1993). Freud sent patients postcards, lent them books, gave them gifts, corrected them when they spoke inaccurately about his family members, provided some with considerable financial support, and on at least one occasion gave a patient a meal (Gutheil and Gabbard 1993; Lipton 1977). According to Gutheil and Gabbard,

The line between professional and personal relationships in Freud’s analytic practice was difficult to pinpoint. During vacations he would analyze Ferenczi while walking through the countryside. In one of his letters to Ferenczi, which were often addressed “Dear Son,” he indicated that during his holiday he planned to analyze him in two sessions a day but also invited him to share at least one meal with him each day (unpublished manuscript by A. Hoffer). For Freud the analytic relationship could be circumscribed by the time boundaries of the analytic sessions, and other relationships were possible outside the analytic hours. The most striking illustration of this conception of boundaries is Freud’s analysis of his own daughter, Anna. (189)

These various manifestations of blurred boundaries occurred despite Freud’s explicit and strongly worded observations about the inappropriateness of therapists’ love relationships with patients: “The love-relationship actually destroys the influence of the analytic treatment on the patient; a combination of the two would be an inconceivable thing” (Freud 1963, cited in Smith and Fitzpatrick 1995).

Several other luminaries have provided intriguing mixed messages regarding boundaries. When Melanie Klein was analyzing Clifford Scott, she encouraged him to follow her to the Black Forest for her vacation. During each day of the vacation, Klein analyzed Scott for two hours while Scott reclined on the bed in Klein’s hotel room (Grosskurth 1986; Gutheil and Gabbard 1993). D. W. Winnicott (1949) reported housing young patients as part of his treatment of them. According to Margaret Little’s (1990) first-person account of her analysis with Winnicott, Winnicott held her hands clasped between his for many hours as she lay on the couch. Little also reports that Winnicott told her about another patient of his who had committed suicide and disclosed significant detail about his countertransference reactions to the patient. Winnicott also apparently routinely concluded sessions with coffee and biscuits.

Further complicating efforts to develop definitive guidelines regarding proper boundaries is the contention by a relatively small number of critics that the human service professions have mishandled their efforts to generate boundary-related guidelines and that current prohibitions are misguided. Ebert (1997), for example, argues that “the concept of dual relationship prohibitions has limited value in that it creates confusion and leads to unfair results in ethics and licensing actions. It serves little purpose because it does not assist psychologists in analyzing situations. Neither does it provide much help in assisting psychologists in deciding how to act in a particular situation, such that the client’s best interest is considered” (137). Ebert asserts that many dual relationship prohibitions enforced by the American Psychological Association (APA)—especially those related to nonsexual relationships—violate practitioners’ constitutional and privacy rights and are overly vague:

There are major problems with dual-relationship prohibitions. Because they are poorly defined and there is limited publication of decisions regarding nonsexual dual relationships, they are vague in the constitutional sense. Second, they tend to be overly broad in that, as written, the prohibitions tend to restrict constitutionally protected rights while also restricting nonconstitutionally protected rights. Third, they are often interpreted literally as prohibitions against all dual relationships when that was never the intent of APA. . . . Fourth, the prohibitions interfere with the constitutionally protected right to privacy. This substantive due-process right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution has been one often used by APA to support its position on nondiscrimination and pro-choice. Fifth, the First Amendment Right to Association is unacceptably restricted. Some policies surrounding dual relationship could be considered as gender discrimination. Finally, the way in which decisions have been handed down, the confusion regarding accepted practices, and the lack of publication of cases as well as the lack of an analytical model to be applied to ethics decisions, have created a system without adequate procedural due process. (143)

The contemporary human service literature contains relatively few in-depth discussions of boundary issues and guidelines (Corey and Herlihy 1997; Jayaratne, Croxton, and Mattison 1997; Kagle and Giebelhausen 1994; Strom-Gottfried 1999). Understandably, much of the available literature focuses on dual relationships that are exploitative in nature, such as the sexual involvement of human service professionals with clients (Olarte 1997; K. Pope 1995; Simon 1999). Certainly, these are important and compelling issues. However, many boundary and dual relationship issues in the human services are much more subtle than these egregious forms of ethical misconduct. An empirical survey of a statewide sample of clinicians uncovered substantial disagreement concerning the appropriateness of behaviors such as developing friendships with clients, participating in social activities with clients, serving on community boards with clients, providing clients with one’s home telephone number, accepting goods and services from clients instead of money, and discussing one’s religious beliefs with clients (Jayaratne, Croxton, and Mattison 1997; also see Borys and Pope 1989; Pope, Tabachnick, and Keith-Spiegel 1988; Strom-Gottfried 1999). As Corey and Herlihy (1997) note,

The pendulum of controversy over dual relationships, which has produced extreme reactions on both sides, has slowed and now swings in a narrower arc. It is clear that not all dual relationships can be avoided, and it is equally clear that some types of dual relationships (such as sexual intimacies with clients) should always be avoided. In the middle range, it would be fruitful for professionals to continue to work to clarify the distinctions between dual relationships that we should try to avoid and those into which we might enter, with appropriate precautions. (190)

To achieve a more finely tuned understanding of boundary issues, we must broaden our analysis and examine dual relationships through several conceptual lenses. First, human service professionals should distinguish between boundary violations and boundary crossings (Gutheil and Gabbard 1993). A boundary violation occurs when a practitioner engages in a dual relationship with a client or colleague that is exploitative, manipulative, deceptive, or coercive. Examples include professionals who become sexually involved with current clients, recruit and collude with clients to fraudulently bill insurance companies, or influence terminally ill clients to include their therapist in their will.

One key feature of boundary violations is a conflict of interest that harms clients or colleagues (Epstein 1994; Kitchener 1988; Kutchins 1991; Peterson 1992; K. Pope 1988, 1991). Conflicts of interest occur when professionals find themselves in a relationship that could prejudice or give the appearance of prejudicing their decision making. In more legalistic language, conflicts of interest occur when professionals are in “a situation in which regard for one duty leads to disregard of another or might reasonably be expected to do so” (Gifis 1991:88). Thus a human service professional who provides services to a client with whom he would like to develop a sexual relationship faces a conflict of interest; the professional’s personal interests clash with his professional duty to avoid harming his client. Similarly, a practitioner who invests money in a client’s business is embedded in a conflict of interest; the professional’s financial interests may clash with her duty to the client (for example, if the professional’s relationship with the client becomes strained because they disagree about some aspect of their shared business venture).

The codes of ethics of several human service professions explicitly address the concept of conflict of interest. A prominent example is the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) Code of Ethics (1996):

Social workers should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest that interfere with the exercise of professional discretion and impartial judgment. Social workers should inform clients when a real or potential conflict of interest arises and take reasonable steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes the clients’ interests primary and protects clients’ interests to the greatest extent possible. In some cases, protecting clients’ interests may require termination of the professional relationship with proper referral of the client. (standard 1.06[a])

The code goes on to say that “social workers should not engage in dual or multiple relationships with clients or former clients in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client” (standard 1.06[c]).

Some conflicts of interest involve what lawyers call undue influence. Undue influence occurs when a human service professional inappropriately pressures or exercises authority over a susceptible client in a manner that benefits the practitioner and may not be in the client’s best interest. In legal terminology, undue influence involves the “exertion of improper influence and submission to the domination of the influencing party. . . . In such a case, the influencing party is said to have an unfair advantage over the other based, among other things, on real or apparent authority, knowledge of necessity or distress, or a fiduciary or confidential relationship” (Gifis 1991:508). The American Medical Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatrists (1996) specifically addresses the concept of undue influence: “The psychiatrist should diligently guard against exploiting information furnished by the patient and should not use the unique position of power afforded him/her by the psychotherapeutic situation to influence the patient in any way not directly relevant to the treatment goals” (sec. 2, annotation 2).

In contrast to boundary violations, a boundary crossing occurs when a human service professional is involved in a dual relationship with a client or colleague in a manner that is not exploitative, manipulative, deceptive, or coercive. Boundary crossings are not inherently unethical; they often involve boundary “bending” as opposed to boundary “breaking.” In principle, the consequences of boundary crossings may be harmful, salutary, or neutral (Gutheil and Gabbard 1993). Boundary crossings are harmful when the dual relationship has negative consequences for the practitioner’s client or colleague and, potentially, the practitioner him- or herself. For example, a professional who discloses to a client personal, intimate details about her own life, ostensibly to be helpful to the client, ultimately may confuse the client and compromise the client’s mental health because of complicated transference issues produced by the practitioner’s self-disclosure. An educator in the human services who accepts a student’s dinner invitation may inadvertently harm the student by confusing him about nature of the educator’s relationship with the student.

Alternatively, some boundary crossings may be helpful to clients and colleagues. Some professionals argue that, handled judiciously, a practitioner’s modest self-disclosure or decision to accept an invitation to attend a client’s graduation ceremony may prove, in some special circumstances, to be therapeutically useful to a client (Anderson and Mandell 1989; Chapman 1997; Reamer 1997b, 1998a, in press). A practitioner who worships, coincidentally, at the same church, mosque, or synagogue as one of his clients may help the client “normalize” the professional–client relationship. An educator in the human services who hires a student to serve as a research assistant may boost the student’s self-confidence in a way that greatly enriches the student’s educational experience.

Yet other boundary crossings produce mixed results. A practitioner’s self-disclosure about personal challenges may be both helpful and harmful to the same client—helpful in that the client feels more connected to the practitioner and harmful in that the self-disclosure undermines the client’s confidence in the practitioner. The human service administrator who hires a former client initially may elevate the former client’s self-confidence, but boundary problems will arise if the employee subsequently wants to resume his status as an active client in order to address some new issues in his life.

Practitioners should also be aware of the conceptual distinction in the terms impropriety and appearance of impropriety. An impropriety occurs when a practitioner violates a client’s boundaries or engages in inappropriate dual relationships in a manner that violates prevailing ethical standards. Conducting a sexual relationship with a client and borrowing money from a client are clear examples of impropriety. In contrast, an appearance of impropriety occurs when a practitioner engages in conduct that appears to be improper but in fact may not be.

Let me illustrate this with a personal example. A number of years ago, I served on the governor’s staff in my state. In that position, I helped formulate public policy related to low-income and affordable housing. I worked directly with the governor when important issues arose, such as when relevant bills were pending in the state legislature. After several years, I resigned that position; shortly thereafter, the governor concluded his term in office. The new governor then appointed me to the state parole board, which entails conducting hearings for prison inmates eligible for parole. After I began serving in that position, the former governor—my former employer—was indicted and charged in criminal court with committing offenses while in office (among other issues, this complex case involved financial transactions among the governor, his political campaign staff, and building contractors and other parties who sought state contracts). The former governor was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison. When he became eligible for parole and was scheduled to appear before me, I had to decide whether to participate in his hearing or recuse myself. I knew in my heart that I would be able to render a fair decision. However, I also knew that I needed to be sensitive to the appearance of impropriety. I could not expect the general public to believe that I could be impartial, in light of my relationship with the man when he had been in office. No matter how certain I was of my ability to be fair and impartial, I had to concede that, at the very least, it would appear that I was involved in an inappropriate dual relationship. Because of the likely appearance of impropriety, I decided to recuse myself. Thus, although engaging in behaviors that only appear to be improper may not be unethical, human service practitioners should be sensitive to the effect that such appearances may have on their reputation and the integrity of their profession.

A Typology of Boundary Issues and Dual Relationships

Given the gr...

Table of contents

• Cover 
• Half title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents 
• Preface
• 1. Boundary Issues and Dual Relationships: Key Concepts
• 2. Intimate Relationships
• 3. Emotional and Dependency Needs
• 4. Personal Benefit
• 5. Altruism
• 6. Unavoidable and Unanticipated Circumstances
• Epilogue
• References
• Index