Thanks for the new post, Liz– I am going to read it right now! There is one thing I forgot to add to my last post. The Ethics Committee and Technology Committee serve at the pleasure of the AATA Board of Directors. “…the pleasure of” means “appointed” or “dismissed” by the Board, as are all committees and staff appointed and/or dismissed at their discretion. It will probably be a very difficult task for either to objectively review the issues of Internet art therapy and provide guidelines [which is all that they can really do in these hypothetical matters].

I believe that if the Board would someday be interested in the impact of electronic communication on clients, they should seek an outside, impartial, and objective group of experts on mental health law and ethics. That group should probably be outside of the general membership to ensure fair review and advanced knowledge. Years ago when HIPAA was instituted, I was on the Board and we brought in specialized experts to interpret and guide, instead of assuming that we or the members could simply form a committee and make decisions or offer opinions.

Just some more thoughts on a complex topic.

Please refer to my new post Ethics and the Internet. I try to clearly break down and express my opinion on this topic. I hope this helps to shed some light on the subject.

Thanks for stopping by!
- Liz

Great post! The article/blog on client and client work on websites is indeed a hot topic for discussion. On my website, I use clients and their images, and of course, I have signed and safely stored releases from them giving me permission to do so. Is there a universal protocol that we need to follow re: the use of client work or clients?

Having Lynn Kapitan as my advisor and professor throughout my AT grad years, I felt that her ethical practices were a template for me to follow. The difference now, is that then, I did not have a website.

What are more thoughts you have on this?

And BTW, I LOVE your website and the work you do. Wonderful!

You’re absolutely right, there are many art therapists who are pushing the bounds of confidentiality on their websites or facebook pages (and other social networking media). These issues will continue to arise as we see more therapists entering the online domain for their actual practices, which is already beginning to take place. More and more therapists will need to be tech savy enough and use their common sense to realize when they’re potentially violating a client’s confidentiality. I’m a firm believer that the more we can hammer out the subject now, the better off we’ll be as a profession in the future.

You’re also right that the AATA ethics code is clear about the exclusion of client names. However, many seem to consider using real initials or first names only to be okay, and some just seem to ignore the code all together. Thank goodness we can express our opinions in open forums, which (hopefully) helps the profession to keep itself in check, because in this case it doesn’t seem like any other repercussions are present besides social pressure from other art therapists.

I’m very interested to see AATA’s report, although I’m not sure how they plan to discuss or distribute the report to the conference’s attendees. Would it be during a specific meeting or workshop, or will we one day just find it on their website under ethics?

Thanks for starting the discussion!

Thanks for keeping the discussion going on this issue. I would like the Ethics Committee [not sure why a Technology Committee would comment, that is interesting] make a statement to guide professionals and students in this matter. While I gave an unnamed case example on Facebook, be it known that there are many examples of therapists engaged in similar actions that fall into the same debatable use of FB Fan Pages.

Here’s the simple point that confuses me– The art therapy ethics code is very strict about the exclusion of client names on artwork; so hence our current confusion about using clients’ names either on artwork or film posted to 300 million FB viewers. It seems to be a contradiction. Consent just goes so far and we know that client consent to things that are not in their best interests on many occasions because of their transferential reactions to their therapists.

Good points were made by you in previous posts about educational videos such as those made by Judith Rubin. It’s just my opinion [and I hope we are free to have opinions!], but an educational video that is edited, formatted, and constructed in a professional manner with necessary client releases, is just that– educational. Journal articles are the same, although I doubt our editors would allow actual names of clients to be included. There are also companies such as Guilford Press that require faces to be blacked out on film or child actors to be employed [see the two films featuring Eliana Gil, play and art therapist]. Guilford requires anyone who writes texts for them to obtain client artwork releases, child assent, eliminate names, and make sure the case description does not reveal who the client might be. Even if a client should want his or name in the case or on the art work, Guilford just would not allow it because once in print [as with the Internet]. That type of identifying information lives on in perpetuity and cannot be easily eliminated should it harm the client or the client suddenly wants it retracted.

Thanks again for continuing this good discussion and I am certain that good things for the profession and art therapy clients will come forward from it.