Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcAuliffe, Donnaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSauvage, Deborahen_US
dc.contributor.authorMorrissey, Shirleyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T12:20:40Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T12:20:40Z
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.date.modified2014-08-28T05:04:02Z
dc.identifier.issn13218719en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/13218719.2010.543404en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/41416
dc.description.abstractThis article examines integrity provisions from the stance of a member of the public who wishes to make a complaint regarding practitioner sexual boundary violation. A hypothetical case scenario applicable to practitioners in a range of psychotherapeutic and social care occupations is presented. Relevant sections of the ethical codes of key Australian voluntary professional associations are then compared. These associations are the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Australian Psychological Society, the Australian Association of Social Workers, as well as the Australian Counselling Association and the Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia, which have recently made a joint agreement to establish the Australian Register of Counsellors and Psychotherapists. An analysis of the provisions of relevant national, state and territory boards, complaint commissions and professional associations, (defined for the purposes of this article as "integrity bodies"), highlights significant inequities in clients' rights regarding complaints.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherRoutledgeen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom45en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto59en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue1en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalPsychiatry Psychology and Lawen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume19en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPsychology not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode170199en_US
dc.titleIntegrity Provisions in Response to Practitioner Sexual Boundary Violations in Australia: A Comparative Analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Health, School of Human Services and Social Worken_US
gro.date.issued2012
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record