After some thought regarding Cathy Malchiodi’s post on her Psychology Today Blog and comments left on both her page and on my response, I decided to email Peg Dunn Snow Ph.D. ATR-BC, LPAT, LMHC directly. I realized that since her name was not used in Cathy’s original post and in responses to it, even if Dr. Dunn Snow had a google alert on her name, she would most likely not be aware of the controversy that her facebook fan page drummed up.
The following is my email to Dr. Dunn Snow, dated August 18, 2009:
Hi Dr. Duun-Snow,
My name is Elizabeth Beck. I’m an active member of the online art therapy community. I recently came across an article by Cathy Malchiodi on her Psychology Today Blog:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-healing-arts/200907/facebook-fan-page-your-private-practice
Although your name is never mentioned in her article, after doing an online search it’s clear to me that Cathy is referring to your fan page for Children’s Corner: Art Therapy for Children. I write a blog myself, which can be found at http://www.lizbeck.net
I was wondering if you have a response to the article and comments made on both Cathy and my blog? I think many art therapists would benefit from clarifying your methodology in assessing the ethics of posting videos on your fan page. This truly is a new frontier and your guidance is most appreciated.
Also, I’m giving a workshop at the AATA conference in November on the topics of blogging and podcasting. Would I be able to use your response for teaching purposes in my workshop? With your permission I would also like to post your response on my blog as well.
Thank you for your consideration,
Elizabeth Beck
Dr. Dunn Snow did respond to my email, but has not given a “yes” or “no” response as to whether I can post her comments. This is only a summary of her response, rather than a direct quote:
I was hoping for a more in depth response to all of our questions, comments and thoughts. I also hope that our reactions were taken to heart by Dr. Dunn Snow. I haven’t checked her fan page in a while, but I would expect that some changes would be made, for example putting a disclaimer regarding informed consent along with the videos.
Hi Liz,
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.
Hey Cathy,
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!
Hi 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!
Hi Poppy,
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
Hi Liz and Poppy,
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.