PS526 Unit 6 Ethics Case Critique Example

Five Things the Counselor Got Wrong: A PS526 Unit 6 Ethics Case Critique of a Rural Outpatient Counselor Under the NAADAC Code

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS526: Advanced Addictions Counseling

Unit 6 Ethics Case Critique

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The case, the counselor, the client and every detail are composite and illustrative, written for a training exercise; the codes and sources cited are real.

The Case

Our center uses a composite training case for new staff. In it, a counselor named Shawna works alone at a small outpatient office in a ranching town two hours from the nearest city. She is warm, overworked and devoted to her clients. Her client Lane, 34, is on probation after a DUI and attends her Tuesday group and individual sessions.

Over three months, Shawna exchanges text messages with Lane late at night when he says he is struggling, sometimes for an hour. She lends him $200 to fix his truck so he can keep his job. When Lane tests positive for alcohol, she calls his probation officer, whom she knows from church, to "get ahead of it," without a signed release. In February, a blizzard cancels her Tuesday group, but she bills Lane's insurance for the session because "he would have come." When Lane says he wants more support, she refers him to a faith-based recovery program at her church and does not mention other options. Lane, who has said he is not religious, stops attending after his probation officer raises the positive test.

This critique identifies each problem, names the standard involved, explains which facts make it apply and proposes what should have happened.

Late-Night Texting

Texting falls under the NAADAC code's standards on boundaries and on technology, which expect a counselor's messages to serve the client and keep the relationship professional (NAADAC, 2021). Reamer (2021) would classify the texting as a boundary crossing that risks becoming a violation: it began from care, but hour-long conversations late at night blur the professional role, create dependence on one person and leave the counselor exhausted. There is also no record of what was said, which matters if Lane disclosed risk.

What should have happened: a written policy on after-hours contact, given to Lane at intake, with a crisis line for nights and a commitment to respond at the next session or business day.

The Loan

Lending money to a client creates a financial relationship alongside the counseling one. Reamer (2021) lists financial entanglements among the dual relationships most likely to cause harm, because they create obligations that can shape what the client says or feels able to say. If Lane could not repay, the debt would sit in every session.

What should have happened: help Lane find resources for the repair, such as a local assistance fund, or connect him with a case manager, without lending personal money.

The Call to Probation

This is the most serious problem because it violates both the law and the code. Records of a federally assisted substance use program are protected by the federal confidentiality rule, which requires a written consent naming the recipient, the information and the purpose before disclosure (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2024). Many probation agreements require such a consent, but none existed here. The NAADAC code likewise requires informed consent before disclosure, except where law allows otherwise (NAADAC, 2021).

Shawna's call to the probation officer was meant to protect Lane, and it was the act most likely to send him to jail.

What should have happened: obtain a specific written consent at intake that met the federal requirements, explain to Lane exactly what would be reported, and report only what the consent allowed.

Billing for a Canceled Group

Billing for a service not provided is insurance fraud, regardless of the client's intentions to attend. The NAADAC code requires honest billing and accurate records (NAADAC, 2021). The act also exposes the counselor and her employer to legal penalties.

What should have happened: record the cancellation and bill nothing, or offer a telehealth session if the payer covers it and the client attends.

The Referral

Referring Lane only to a faith-based program, after he said he was not religious, ignores his values and limits his options. The NAADAC code asks professionals to respect clients' beliefs and cultural identities and to avoid imposing their own (NAADAC, 2021). Shawna's assumption that "everyone around here is church people" is a sociocultural judgment that does not fit Lane.

What should have happened: offer a range of options, including secular mutual help groups and online meetings, and let Lane choose.

The Pattern Behind the Acts

The five problems share a source. Shawna works alone, has no supervision and cares deeply about her clients. Isolation makes boundary drift easy to miss and hard to correct. The NAADAC code asks addiction professionals to seek consultation and supervision when facing ethical questions, and Reamer (2021) emphasizes consultation as a core risk management step. The most important change for Shawna would be regular clinical supervision, even by video, with someone who would ask about her late-night texts before they became a habit.

Why Good Counselors Drift

It would be easy to read the case as the story of a bad counselor. The training discussion at our center went the other way. Several staff said they recognized themselves in Shawna: the late-night text answered because a client sounded desperate, the small favor that felt like kindness, the shortcut taken because a probation officer was a friend. Reamer (2021) describes boundary problems as often beginning with small, well-meant departures that accumulate, especially when a practitioner is isolated and overextended. That is why the critique matters for every counselor, not only for the one in the case. The question each of us took away was simple: which of Shawna's five acts would I be most tempted to repeat?

Lessons for Our Center

Our team uses this case because each of its five acts has happened, in some form, in programs we know. After discussing it, we reviewed our own policies on after-hours contact and gifts, confirmed that every probation client has a valid federal consent on file and added a monthly ethics check-in to supervision.

Conclusion

The composite case shows how a caring counselor can commit five ethical and legal violations without intending harm. Under the NAADAC code, the federal confidentiality rule and Reamer's boundary framework, the late-night texting and the loan were boundary problems, the call to probation broke federal law, the billing was fraud and the referral ignored the client's values. Each had a better alternative, and nearly all could have been prevented by supervision.

References

NAADAC. (2021). NAADAC code of ethics. NAADAC, the Association for Addiction Professionals. https://www.naadac.org/code-of-ethics

Reamer, F. G. (2021). Boundary issues and dual relationships in the human services (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2024). Confidentiality of substance use disorder (SUD) patient records. Federal Register, 89, 12472-12631. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/16/2024-02544/confidentiality-of-substance-use-disorder-sud-patient-records