Language

The issue of language is also worthy of note. International collaboration brings with it substantial richness, drawing upon the various traditions represented. There are also sen­sitivities, not least with respect to language. When first formed EFPPA had three official languages: English. French, and German. The difficulties operating a trilingual system were apparent and English was chosen as the pri­mary language for EFPPA and so English was agreed as the language for the Task Force. However, it was agreed that language would be reviewed consistently to ensure that sub­tle meanings in the developing context of the Meta-code were captured, with footnotes as appropriate. In the event only two significant issues arose; one concerned "confiden­tiality." Task Force members from Southern Europe were concerned that this word did not fully capture the essence of the common phrase in Romance languages "professional secret." The second concerned the use of the term "philosophy" in the draft preamble, changed to "general philosophy" in paragraph 3 of the Preamble. However, foregrounding language as a matter of sensitivity was impor­tant as it recognized the danger of the potential hegemony of English and ensured that concepts also were analyzed to avoid Anglocentricity.

Which Psychologists?

A fundamental issue that arose during the development of the Meta-code was whether the focus of the Meta-code should be on professional applied psychology or the full range of the discipline, in particular to include research and academic psychologists, who did not have a psycholo­gist-client relationship in the normal understanding of the phrase. The decision taken was that the Meta-code should be comprehensive. This was also helpful as there was a comparable discussion within EFPPA concerning its nature as an organization of professional psychologists associa­tions, resulting in a decision that EFPPA should become EFPA, to include scientific and applied professional practice. Consequently, the Meta-code was fit for purpose for the broader based EFPA.

7

The Meta-Code 1995

The final version of the Meta-code comprised: (1) Preamble, (2) Four Principles, and (3) The Content. The Preamble comprised a brief introduction which included the following statement of purpose:

"EFPPA provides the following guidance for the con­tent of the Ethical Codes of its member Associations. An Association's ethical code should cover all aspects of the professional behaviour of its members."

This clarified that the Meta-code was not a code for psychol­ogists but rather the template for the ethical codes of associ­ations, which were for psychologists. The Principles were as follows:

1. Respect for a Person s Rights and Dignity Psychologists accord appropriate respect to and pro­mote the development of the fundamental rights, dignity and worth of all people. They respect the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination and autonomy, consistent with the psychologist's other professional obligations and with the law.

2. Competence

Psychologists strive to ensure and maintain high standards of competence in their work. They recog­nise the boundaries of their particular competencies and the limitations of their expertise. They provide only those services and use only those techniques for which they are qualified by education, training or experience.

2.3 Responsibility

Psychologists are aware of the professional and sci­entific responsibilities to their clients, to the commu­nity, and to the society in which they work and live. Psychologists avoid doing harm and are responsible for their own actions, and assure themselves, as far as possible, that their services are not misused.

2.4 Integrity

Psychologists seek to promote integrity in the sci­ence, teaching and practice of psychology. In these activities psychologists are honest, fair and respect­ful of others. They attempt to clarify for relevant par­ties the roles they are performing and to function appropriately in accordance with those roles.

The Content began with an explication of three main issues. Firstly, the definition of client was provided:

"In the following Meta-Code the term "client" refers to any person, patients, persons in interdependence or organisations with whom psychologists have a profes­sional relationship, including indirect relationships."

This was followed by four specifications regarding profes­sional relationships that national associations' codes should address. These stressed that there was always a power rela­tionship in any professional relationship involving a psy­chologist, that the psychologist's responsibility was a function of the degree of inequality, and that the psycholo­gist had the responsibility of addressing this:

Professional psychologists' ethical codes must take the following into account:

• Psychologists' professional behaviour must be consid­ered within a professional role, characterised by the professional relationship.

• Inequalities of knowledge and power always influence psychologists' professional relationships with clients and colleagues.

• The larger the inequality in the professional relation­ship and the greater the dependency of clients, the heavier is the responsibility of the professional psychologist.

• The responsibilities of psychologists must be consid­ered within the context of the stage of the professional relationship.

Third, it was stressed that the principles were interdepen­dent, not in a hierarchical relationship, and a brief comment was included that ethical decision-making "will require reflection and often dialogue with clients and colleagues, weighing different ethical principles. Making decisions and taking actions are necessary even if there are still con­flicting issues."

Finally, the principles were each amplified and exempli­fied by specifications. These were not standards of behavior but statements of the issues to address in national codes following the implications of each ethical principle. An example has been provided above with respect to relation­ships and addressing conflicts of interest and avoiding exploitation.

The Meta-code was confirmed by the Task Force at its meeting in Zurich March 18-19, 1995. It was debated and approved by the General Assembly in Athens July 1-2, 1995.

8