A version of this post was originally posted on Oct 17, 2012.
The preceding post is accessible via this link.
During the academic year, students frequently inquire about the “Missing the Target” post, which I incorporate into an Introduction to Human Services course. The actual post can be accessed here. This narrative has been an integral part of the course for over eight years.
Why did you not intervene during the meeting?
The meeting was not under my control. I was an invited guest and this was my initial encounter. Did the meeting proceed as intended? No. Do I harbor any regrets about my intervention? No. I highlighted both the positive and negative aspects of the client’s behavior while refraining from adopting a partisan stance.
Why is it unethical for you to speak up, considering your constant emphasis on creating safe environments for clients?
Yes, I have an ethical obligation to safeguard the client and ensure their well-being, even from fellow professionals. However, the communication breakdown I described was a result of the actions and inactions of both the professionals and the family. The professionals at the table lacked empathy and failed to acknowledge the family’s situation. The family, in turn, was unable to recognize the concerns and needs of the assisting professionals and the systems surrounding them.
Therefore, you should have spoken up.
No, not me. Let us consider the potential consequences if I had chosen to do so. The current tone of the conversation suggests that my intervention could lead to one of two outcomes. First, regardless of my efforts to maintain impartiality and kindness, my comments would likely be misinterpreted and result in the division of the treatment team, potentially leading to my expulsion, whether intentional or unintentional. Second, the family would perceive the division within the team and may exploit the situation. Consequently, my comments could fuel further negative reactions and serve as excuses for their behavior.
In light of these considerations, speaking up may lead to worsening circumstances. Therefore, taking this risk and speaking up appears to be a better alternative to doing nothing.
No. My objective is to never exacerbate the client’s situation. Sharing my concerns about the meeting in front of the client and his family regarding the professional conduct of others within my sphere of influence is never acceptable. I hold a higher standard of expectation for myself, my colleagues, and my clients.
Did I fail in this regard?
Yes. After the session, I discussed the process and outcome of the meeting with the professionals present. More importantly, the next time I met with the client, we processed the meeting without assigning blame. We focused solely on the two of us. We discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the meeting in question, his options, and potential consequences.
The moral of the story is that as professionals, we cannot become consumed by the immediate crisis of the situation. The long-term growth of the client and the development of our therapeutic relationship were of greater significance than the emergency that occurred at that particular moment.