Counseling Ethics: The Case of Sexuality Information

Daniel del Rio  Forero; Claudia Pineda  Marín; Diego Andrés  Alfonso Murcia; María Teresa  Muñoz Sastre; Etienne  Mullet

doi:10.18502/jfrh.v19i1.18436

Daniel del Rio Forero Center for Studies and Research in Psychopathology and Health Psychology (CERPPS), Doctoral School of Behavior, Language, Education, Socialization, Cognition (CLESCO), Federal University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France
Claudia Pineda Marín Faculty of Psychology, Konrad Lorenz University, Bogotá, Colombia and Universidad Oberta de Catalunya, Catalunya, Spain
Diego Andrés Alfonso Murcia Faculty of Psychology, Konrad Lorenz University, Bogotá, Colombia
María Teresa Muñoz Sastre Center for Studies and Research in Psychopathology and Health Psychology (CERPPS), Doctoral School of Behavior, Language, Education, Socialization, Cognition (CLESCO), Federal University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France
Etienne Mullet Institute of Advanced Studies (EPHE), Paris, France

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v19i1.18436

Keywords: Counseling; Ethics; Sexuality Information; Colombia

Abstract

Objective: The study aimed to identify Colombian adults' positions in cases in which a counsellor can and should not do so in a situation where parents who are uncomfortable with all issues related to sexuality ask their daughter's school counsellor to help answer her questions about these topics.

Materials and methods: A convenience sample of 180 adults, including 19 school counsellors, was presented with a set of 24 vignettes created by orthogonally crossing three factors: (a) the context of the request (e.g., parents ask the educator to limit sexual information to purely biological aspects), (b) whether the adolescent requests additional information, and (c) the type of information provided by the educator (e.g., comprehensive information, including abortion).

Results: A cluster analysis of participants' appropriateness judgments regarding counsellor’s behavior revealed four qualitatively different positions: Depends on adolescent’s request (5%), Completeness of information (26%), Biological information is insufficient (31%), and at educator's discretion (16%). In addition, 18% (most religious) expressed no discernible position.

Conclusion: The majority of participants (57%) thus expressed the view that the most appropriate behavior on the part of the counselor was to provide the most comprehensive information possible, and certainly not to focus solely on the biological aspects of sex education during counseling. This view was largely independent of contextual elements such as the limits to communication set by the parents or even the limits to communication set by the adolescent.