| Course | PS380 Clinical Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Ethics case analysis |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS380 Unit 3
The New Client Coaches Her Son's Hockey Team: A PS380 Unit 3 Ethics Case Analysis
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PS380: Clinical Psychology
Unit 3 Ethics Case Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The clinic, the psychologist, the client and the community are composite; the ethics code and articles cited are real.
The Case
Our clinic on Minnesota's Iron Range has one licensed psychologist, Dr. Lund, and a four-month waiting list. In March, a family physician referred a new client, whom I will call Megan, for moderate depression following a divorce. Megan is 38, works as a dental hygienist and asked specifically to see Dr. Lund because a friend had recommended her. At intake, I recognized Megan's name: she coaches the youth hockey team on which Dr. Lund's twelve-year-old son plays. Dr. Lund sees her at practices twice a week and at games most Saturdays, and the two have carpooled to tournaments.
The nearest other psychologist accepting new clients is in Duluth, about eighty miles away, with a three-month wait. Our clinic also has a licensed independent clinical social worker who provides therapy, but Dr. Lund supervises her cases.
This paper identifies the ethical issues, applies the APA ethics code and research on rural practice, works through a decision model and recommends a course of action.
The Ethical Issues
The central issue is a potential multiple relationship, and it is not hypothetical. Megan would be Dr. Lund's client while also being her son's coach, a parent in the same hockey community and a carpool partner. Several related issues follow. Confidentiality is at risk in a small community, where people may notice Megan's car at the clinic or overhear conversations at the rink. Objectivity is at risk too: Dr. Lund might hesitate to challenge Megan in therapy if she worries about her son's playing time, and Megan might hold back about her frustrations with hockey parents, one of whom would be her therapist. Against these risks stands the duty to provide care to a person who needs it in a place where little care is available.
What the Code Says
The APA ethics code counts three situations as multiple relationships: a second role with the client, a role with someone close to the client, and a promise of a future role (American Psychological Association, 2017). Megan's case involves the first two. Standard 3.05 says psychologists should refrain from a multiple relationship if it could reasonably be expected to impair their objectivity, competence or effectiveness, or risks exploitation or harm. It also states that multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are not unethical.
The code does not ask whether a second relationship exists, but whether a reasonable observer would expect it to cloud the psychologist's judgment or hurt the client.
Other standards bear on the case. Standard 4.01 requires protecting confidential information. Standard 3.04 requires avoiding harm. The general principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, and of justice, support access to care for a client in an underserved area.
Rural Practice
Schank and Skovholt (1997) interviewed psychologists in rural towns and small communities, and their participants treated overlap as an everyday condition of the job rather than a rare event. Their participants described meeting clients at church, in stores and at their children's activities, and they managed these overlaps through careful boundaries, frank conversations with clients and consultation, rather than refusing every client they knew. The researchers concluded that rules written with urban practice in mind could not simply be applied in small towns.
That research matters here because a strict reading of the code could leave Megan without care for months. In a community where everyone knows everyone, refusing every overlap would mean refusing much of the population.
Applying a Decision Model
Younggren and Gottlieb (2004) offered a short sequence of questions for psychologists weighing a second relationship. They ask first whether the overlap is needed at all or could be sidestepped, then whether it might hurt the client, whether it might help if harm seems unlikely, whether it could undermine the work of therapy, and whether the psychologist is in a position to judge any of this without bias. Consultation and a written record run through every step.
Applied to Megan, the questions point in a clear direction. The relationship is avoidable, because the clinic has another therapist who can provide evidence-based treatment for depression. The risk of harm is real: therapy with someone deeply involved in her son's sport, during a divorce in which Megan may need to discuss community relationships, could limit what she says and complicate the hockey season for both of them. The benefit Megan expects from Dr. Lund comes from a friend's recommendation, not a need for her particular skills. Finally, Dr. Lund cannot easily judge her own objectivity, since her son's experience on the team is involved.
Dr. Lund agreed with this reading when I raised it, and added a point I had missed. If Megan's therapy went badly, the hockey team would be one of the few places in town where Megan could not avoid her former therapist, and that is a cost a client in a city would never face.
A complication remains. If the social worker sees Megan, Dr. Lund would normally supervise the case, which would bring her back into Megan's treatment and give her access to confidential information about her son's coach.
Recommended Course of Action
The clinic should offer Megan therapy with the social worker and arrange for that case to be supervised by a psychologist outside the clinic. Dr. Lund already consults monthly with a psychologist in Duluth by video, who could take on the supervision of this one case. Dr. Lund should not see Megan's record.
At intake, I or the social worker should explain to Megan why she is being offered this arrangement, without implying she did anything wrong, and give her the choice of waiting for the Duluth psychologist instead. The informed consent discussion should also cover what will happen if she and Dr. Lund meet at the rink: both will act as they normally do, and neither will mention the clinic. The decision, consultation and consent discussion should all be documented.
Conclusion
Megan's case shows why ethics in clinical practice is more than matching a situation to a rule. The APA code allows some multiple relationships, rural research shows overlaps are often unavoidable, and a decision model makes the trade-offs explicit. Here, the overlap can be avoided without denying care, and the solution protects both Megan's treatment and Dr. Lund's objectivity.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
Schank, J. A., & Skovholt, T. M. (1997). Dual-relationship dilemmas of rural and small-community psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(1), 44-49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.28.1.44
Younggren, J. N., & Gottlieb, M. C. (2004). Managing risk when contemplating multiple relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(3), 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.35.3.255
The Purdue Global PS380 Unit 3 instructions
In Unit 3, PS380 sets a clinical ethics case to be worked through. Describe the case with enough detail to identify the competing obligations. Name the ethical issues, then apply the relevant standards and principles of the APA ethics code, quoting or paraphrasing accurately. Use research or professional literature on the type of dilemma. Work through a recognized ethical decision-making model step by step. Recommend a course of action, show why it beats the other options and describe how it would be documented and communicated to the client. Use APA style, citing the code and at least two scholarly sources, in a paper of about four to six pages.
How the PS 380 Unit 3 example is put together
The analysis opens with Megan's referral, her request to see Dr. Lund and the hockey team that connects them, plus the eighty-mile distance to another psychologist. An issues section names the multiple relationship, confidentiality in a small town and objectivity. A code section explains Standard 3.05, under a highlighted line that the code asks about impairment rather than mere overlap. A rural practice section summarizes Schank and Skovholt. A decision model section answers each of Younggren and Gottlieb's questions with case facts and adds the psychologist's own concern. A complication about supervision leads to the recommendation of an outside supervisor, documented consent and a plan for meetings at the rink.
PS380 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
Instructors grading the ethics paper look for accurate use of the APA code, including the exact conditions under which a multiple relationship is prohibited. Identifying more than one issue, such as confidentiality alongside objectivity, shows depth. Research on the specific context, here rural practice, earns credit by showing why rules must be applied with judgment. The decision model should be applied step by step with case facts, not named and dropped. The recommendation needs to address complications, such as supervision, and include consent and documentation. Graders often reward analyses that consider the client's access to care as an ethical value, not only the risks of the overlap. Clear, respectful language about the client helps.
Common PS380 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Common ethics papers declare any multiple relationship unethical, which misreads the code. Others list several standards without applying them to the facts. Decision models are frequently mentioned in the introduction and never used. Recommendations often stop at refer the client out, without asking where the client would go or how long she would wait. Documentation and consent are commonly left out. Before submitting, quote the standard you rely on and test the case against its conditions, answer each step of your model with a fact from the case, and check that your recommendation names who will do what, how the client will be told, and what will be written down.
Get a PS380 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Send the case and the instructions with the rubric. A custom analysis applies the ethics code and a decision model to the dilemma. It arrives within 24-48h, and a first paper is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More PS380 papers and BS in Psychology samples
- PS380 Unit 1: Clinical Psychologist Role Board Post
- PS380 Unit 2: History of Clinical Psychology Paper
- PS380 Unit 4: Clinical Interview and Assessment Paper
- PS380 Unit 5: Motivational Interviewing Skills Paper
- PS380 Unit 6: Therapy Approaches Comparison Paper
- PS380 Unit 7: Diversity and Cultural Humility Paper
- PS380 Unit 8: Evidence-based Practice Paper
- PS380 Unit 9: Professional Development Reflection
- PS380 Unit 10: Current Topics Paper
- PS115 Unit 3: Fields of Psychology Comparison
- PS370 Unit 3: Stress and Health Paper
- PS200 Unit 3: Working Memory Exercise
- PS330 Unit 3: Learning and Social-Cognitive Analysis
PS380 Unit 3 questions, answered
Are all multiple relationships unethical?
No. The APA code prohibits those that risk impairing objectivity or causing exploitation or harm.
What did Tarasoff establish?
A California duty to protect identifiable people from a client's serious threat of violence.
Why are rural settings different?
Overlapping relationships are often unavoidable in small communities.
Where can I find a free PS380 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page holds the complete PS380 Unit 3 ethics analysis of a rural psychologist whose new client coaches her son's hockey team.
What does the PS380 Unit 3 sample recommend?
Therapy with the clinic's social worker, supervised by an outside psychologist, with informed consent covering chance meetings at the rink.