Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves a conflict between a pastoral counselor’s personal beliefs and the ethical obligation to provide non-judgmental, client-centered care. The counselor’s internal discomfort with the client’s lifestyle choices could lead to unconscious bias, potentially impacting the therapeutic alliance and the effectiveness of the counseling. Maintaining professional boundaries while respecting the client’s autonomy and dignity is paramount. The BCPC’s Code of Ethics emphasizes the counselor’s responsibility to avoid imposing personal values and to provide services without discrimination. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves the counselor engaging in self-reflection and seeking supervision or consultation to manage their personal reactions. This approach acknowledges the counselor’s internal conflict and prioritizes the client’s well-being and the integrity of the therapeutic relationship. By seeking guidance, the counselor can explore their biases, develop strategies to remain objective, and ensure that their personal beliefs do not interfere with their professional duties. This aligns with the BCPC’s ethical mandate to maintain professional competence and to act in the best interest of the client, which includes providing services free from personal prejudice. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is for the counselor to directly express their disapproval or attempt to persuade the client to change their lifestyle. This violates the ethical principle of client autonomy and non-judgmental practice. It imposes the counselor’s personal values onto the client, potentially causing harm, alienating the client, and damaging the therapeutic relationship. This behavior is contrary to the BCPC’s commitment to respecting diverse values and lifestyles. Another incorrect approach is for the counselor to terminate the relationship solely based on their personal discomfort without exploring alternative solutions or ensuring a proper referral. While termination is sometimes necessary, it must be done ethically, with the client’s best interests in mind. Abrupt termination due to personal bias, without attempting to manage the situation or facilitate a smooth transition to another professional, constitutes a failure to uphold the duty of care and can be seen as discriminatory. A third incorrect approach is to ignore the internal conflict and proceed with counseling without any self-awareness or attempt to manage potential biases. This can lead to subtle but damaging interventions that are influenced by the counselor’s personal beliefs, undermining the client’s progress and trust. It represents a lack of professional diligence and a failure to adhere to the BCPC’s standards for maintaining objectivity and ethical practice. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such ethical dilemmas should utilize a decision-making framework that prioritizes client welfare and adherence to ethical codes. This typically involves: 1) Identifying the ethical issue and potential conflicts. 2) Considering relevant ethical principles and professional standards (e.g., BCPC Code of Ethics). 3) Exploring personal values and potential biases. 4) Seeking consultation or supervision from peers or supervisors. 5) Evaluating alternative courses of action and their potential consequences. 6) Making a decision that best upholds ethical obligations and promotes client well-being. 7) Documenting the process and the decision.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a pastoral counselor to navigate the delicate balance between offering spiritual guidance and respecting the autonomy and personal decision-making of a congregant. The counselor must avoid imposing their own beliefs or interpretations of scripture in a way that could be perceived as coercive or judgmental, while still providing supportive and biblically-grounded counsel. Careful judgment is required to discern when spiritual encouragement crosses into undue influence. The best professional approach involves actively listening to the congregant’s concerns, exploring their personal spiritual journey and understanding of God’s will, and then collaboratively identifying potential paths forward that align with their faith and values. This approach prioritizes the congregant’s agency and fosters their own spiritual discernment. It involves asking open-ended questions, reflecting their feelings and thoughts, and offering scriptural insights or prayer as tools for their own reflection, rather than directives. This aligns with ethical principles of client autonomy and non-maleficence, ensuring that the counsel provided empowers rather than dictates. An incorrect approach would be to immediately offer a definitive interpretation of scripture that dictates a specific course of action for the congregant’s marital issues. This fails to respect the congregant’s personal spiritual journey and decision-making process, potentially leading them to feel judged or pressured. It bypasses the crucial step of collaborative discernment and can undermine their confidence in their own spiritual capacity. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the congregant’s spiritual concerns as secondary to practical problem-solving, focusing solely on secular strategies without integrating their faith. This devalues the core of pastoral counseling, which is to integrate spiritual and emotional well-being. It fails to acknowledge the profound impact of faith on an individual’s life and decision-making, particularly within a pastoral context. A third incorrect approach would be to withdraw from offering any spiritual guidance due to fear of overstepping boundaries, leaving the congregant feeling unsupported in their spiritual needs. While respecting boundaries is crucial, complete avoidance of spiritual counsel in a pastoral counseling setting can be a failure to provide the unique support that congregants seek from such services. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with empathetic listening and assessment of the congregant’s presenting issues and their spiritual context. This is followed by collaborative exploration of their faith, values, and potential solutions, utilizing scripture and prayer as aids for their personal discernment. The counselor’s role is to facilitate this process, empowering the congregant to make informed decisions aligned with their spiritual convictions, rather than imposing their own.

This scenario presents a significant professional challenge for a Certified Pastoral Counselor (BCPC) due to the inherent tension between maintaining professional boundaries and responding to a congregant’s deeply personal crisis that extends beyond typical pastoral counseling. The congregant’s request for financial assistance, coupled with their expressed vulnerability and the counselor’s personal connection, necessitates careful navigation to uphold ethical standards while offering appropriate support. The BCPC’s role requires a commitment to the welfare of the congregant, but also to the integrity of the pastoral counseling relationship and adherence to professional ethical guidelines. The best professional approach involves clearly delineating the boundaries of the pastoral counseling relationship and the counselor’s personal capacity to provide financial assistance. This approach prioritizes the congregant’s well-being by connecting them with appropriate resources while safeguarding the therapeutic relationship from potential conflicts of interest or undue influence. Specifically, the counselor should acknowledge the congregant’s distress, express empathy, and then gently but firmly explain that direct financial assistance falls outside the scope of their pastoral counseling role. The counselor should then proactively offer to help the congregant identify and access relevant community resources, such as social services agencies, emergency financial aid programs, or denominational benevolent funds. This upholds the ethical principle of beneficence by seeking the most effective and appropriate help for the congregant, while also adhering to principles of non-maleficence by avoiding actions that could compromise the counseling relationship or create dependency. Furthermore, it respects the principle of justice by ensuring the congregant is directed to systems designed to provide such aid. An incorrect approach would be to immediately provide the requested financial assistance from personal funds. This action, while seemingly compassionate, creates a dual relationship where the counselor is both a therapist and a lender, blurring professional boundaries and potentially leading to exploitation or resentment. It bypasses established systems for financial aid, which may have more sustainable solutions, and could compromise the objectivity of future counseling sessions. This fails to uphold the ethical principle of avoiding conflicts of interest and could lead to a situation where the congregant feels obligated to the counselor in ways that impede genuine therapeutic progress. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the congregant’s request outright without offering any alternative support or resources. While maintaining boundaries is crucial, a complete refusal without acknowledging the distress or suggesting other avenues for help can be perceived as abandonment and fails to embody the pastoral care ethos of compassion and support. This neglects the ethical responsibility to act in the best interest of the congregant and can damage the trust essential for any helping relationship. A third incorrect approach would be to agree to provide financial assistance but to do so without any clear agreement on repayment terms or conditions. This lack of structure can lead to misunderstandings, strain the relationship, and create an unhealthy dynamic of dependency. It also fails to address the underlying issues that may be contributing to the congregant’s financial difficulties, potentially offering a temporary fix rather than a sustainable solution, and thus not fully serving the congregant’s long-term welfare. Professionals should employ a decision-making process that begins with identifying the ethical principles at play (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, fidelity). They should then assess the specific situation, considering the nature of the request, the existing relationship, and potential conflicts of interest. Next, they should explore available options, weighing the ethical implications of each. This involves consulting professional ethical codes and, if necessary, seeking supervision or consultation from peers or mentors. The ultimate decision should prioritize the congregant’s well-being and the integrity of the professional relationship, while adhering to established ethical guidelines and legal requirements.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because the pastoral counselor must navigate the intersection of deeply held cultural beliefs and established ethical standards for assessment. The counselor’s personal understanding of spiritual practices may differ significantly from the client’s cultural framework, creating a risk of misinterpretation or imposing an inappropriate assessment tool. Careful judgment is required to ensure the assessment is both culturally sensitive and clinically sound, respecting the client’s autonomy and dignity. The best professional practice involves a collaborative and culturally informed approach to assessment. This means engaging the client in a dialogue about their understanding of their spiritual experiences and how they perceive their current challenges. The counselor should inquire about the client’s preferred methods of spiritual expression and healing, and then, based on this understanding, select or adapt assessment tools that are culturally congruent and respectful. This approach prioritizes the client’s lived experience and ensures that the assessment process itself is not a source of cultural imposition or distress. This aligns with ethical principles of cultural competence, which mandate that counselors understand and respect the cultural backgrounds of their clients and adapt their practices accordingly to avoid bias and promote effective therapeutic outcomes. An incorrect approach would be to unilaterally apply a standard assessment tool without first exploring the client’s cultural context. This fails to acknowledge the potential for cultural bias within the tool and disregards the client’s unique worldview, potentially leading to inaccurate diagnoses or ineffective interventions. Such an approach violates the ethical imperative to provide culturally sensitive care and risks alienating the client by invalidating their cultural identity. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the client’s spiritual experiences as irrelevant to the assessment because they do not fit a conventional psychological framework. This demonstrates a lack of cultural humility and an unwillingness to integrate a client’s deeply held beliefs into the therapeutic process. Ethically, counselors are expected to approach clients holistically, recognizing that spiritual and cultural factors can significantly impact mental well-being and the client’s perception of their problems. A further incorrect approach would be to assume that because the client identifies as belonging to a particular religious or cultural group, the counselor can automatically understand their experiences without direct inquiry. Cultural groups are not monolithic, and individual experiences within them vary widely. Relying on stereotypes or generalizations rather than engaging in direct, respectful exploration is a failure of cultural competence and can lead to significant misunderstandings and ethical breaches. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should begin with a commitment to cultural humility and ongoing self-reflection regarding one’s own biases. Before initiating assessment, counselors should actively seek to understand the client’s cultural and spiritual background through open-ended questions and active listening. They should then critically evaluate potential assessment tools for cultural appropriateness, considering whether they are validated for the client’s cultural group and whether their underlying assumptions align with the client’s worldview. If a standard tool is deemed inappropriate, the counselor should explore adaptations or alternative, culturally congruent methods of gathering information, always in collaboration with the client.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires the pastoral counselor to navigate the intersection of deeply held religious beliefs and established psychological therapeutic modalities. The counselor must ensure that their application of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) remains within the ethical boundaries of pastoral care and does not inadvertently impose personal theological interpretations or violate the client’s autonomy. Careful judgment is required to integrate therapeutic techniques with spiritual guidance in a manner that is both effective and respectful of the client’s faith tradition. The best professional approach involves carefully integrating CBT techniques with the client’s existing faith framework, focusing on identifying and challenging maladaptive thought patterns that may be exacerbated or interpreted through a religious lens. This approach prioritizes the client’s spiritual well-being and autonomy by using their faith as a resource for healing, rather than as a prescriptive element of the therapy. This aligns with ethical pastoral counseling principles that emphasize respecting the client’s worldview and integrating spiritual resources in a client-centered manner. It also adheres to CBT principles by targeting cognitive distortions, which can be informed by a client’s theological understanding. An incorrect approach would be to directly challenge or reinterpret the client’s theological beliefs as the primary mechanism for addressing their distress. This fails to respect the client’s autonomy and can be perceived as imposing the counselor’s own theological agenda, potentially causing spiritual harm and undermining the therapeutic alliance. It also deviates from core CBT principles by focusing on belief systems rather than specific thought patterns and behaviors. Another incorrect approach would be to solely focus on secular CBT techniques without acknowledging or integrating the client’s spiritual context. While CBT is a valid therapeutic modality, in a pastoral counseling setting, ignoring the spiritual dimension can be a significant oversight, as faith often plays a crucial role in a client’s coping mechanisms and identity. This approach risks providing incomplete care and may not resonate with the client’s overall needs. A further incorrect approach would be to dismiss the client’s spiritual concerns as irrelevant to their psychological distress, suggesting that only secular psychological interventions are appropriate. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the holistic nature of pastoral counseling and the profound impact of faith on mental and emotional well-being. It also fails to leverage a potential source of strength and resilience for the client. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough assessment of the client’s presenting issues, their spiritual beliefs, and how these intersect. The counselor should then collaboratively develop a treatment plan that integrates CBT principles with the client’s faith, ensuring that the client’s autonomy and spiritual integrity are paramount. Ongoing ethical reflection and consultation with supervisors or peers are essential to ensure that the therapeutic process remains client-centered and ethically sound.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging due to the immediate and potentially escalating nature of the client’s distress, coupled with the counselor’s limited direct knowledge of the client’s immediate environment and support system. The counselor must balance the imperative to provide immediate support and safety with the ethical obligation to respect client autonomy and confidentiality, while also recognizing the limits of their professional role and the need for appropriate referral. Careful judgment is required to assess the level of risk accurately and to intervene in a manner that is both effective and ethically sound, adhering strictly to the BCPC’s Code of Ethics and relevant pastoral counseling guidelines. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-faceted approach that prioritizes immediate safety while gathering further information and involving appropriate resources. This includes actively listening to the client’s expressed distress, validating their feelings, and conducting a thorough risk assessment to understand the nature and immediacy of the threat. Simultaneously, it involves exploring the client’s existing support network and, with their consent where possible, reaching out to those individuals or relevant emergency services if imminent danger is identified. This approach aligns with the BCPC’s ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the client’s best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and fidelity (maintaining trust and professional boundaries). It also reflects the crisis intervention model which emphasizes immediate stabilization, assessment, and mobilization of resources. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to immediately contact emergency services without a clear and present danger assessment, potentially violating client confidentiality and autonomy unnecessarily. This fails to uphold the principle of proportionality in intervention and could erode trust. Another incorrect approach would be to offer only general comfort and encouragement without a structured risk assessment or exploration of concrete safety measures. This neglects the ethical duty to assess and mitigate potential harm, leaving the client vulnerable if the crisis is severe. A third incorrect approach would be to dismiss the client’s concerns as an overreaction without adequate exploration or validation. This demonstrates a failure to empathize and could lead to the client disengaging from support, exacerbating their distress and potentially increasing risk. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making framework that begins with active listening and empathy to build rapport. This is followed by a systematic risk assessment, considering factors such as suicidal ideation, intent, plan, access to means, and protective factors. Based on this assessment, the counselor should collaboratively develop a safety plan with the client, which may involve contacting support persons or, in cases of imminent danger, engaging emergency services. The decision-making process must be guided by the BCPC’s Code of Ethics, emphasizing client well-being, confidentiality, and professional competence, while also recognizing the limitations of pastoral counseling and the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration when appropriate.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the counselor’s dual role as both a pastoral caregiver and a clinician operating within a framework that requires adherence to diagnostic standards. The primary difficulty lies in balancing the empathetic, faith-based support inherent in pastoral counseling with the objective, evidence-based diagnostic requirements of the DSM-5. This requires careful judgment to ensure that the client’s spiritual well-being is addressed without compromising the accuracy and ethical integrity of the diagnostic process. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive assessment that integrates the client’s spiritual narrative with observable symptoms and functional impairments, utilizing the DSM-5 as a tool for understanding and communicating clinical presentations. This approach acknowledges the client’s faith as a significant aspect of their identity and coping mechanisms, while also ensuring that their mental health concerns are accurately identified and addressed according to established clinical standards. This aligns with ethical guidelines that mandate competent and client-centered care, which includes utilizing appropriate diagnostic tools to inform treatment planning. The DSM-5, when applied thoughtfully, can help identify patterns of behavior and thought that may be exacerbated or influenced by spiritual distress, allowing for a more holistic and effective intervention. An incorrect approach would be to solely rely on spiritual interpretations of the client’s distress without considering potential underlying or co-occurring mental health conditions as outlined in the DSM-5. This failure to engage with established diagnostic criteria risks misdiagnosis, inadequate treatment, and potentially harmful interventions that do not address the root causes of the client’s suffering. It also neglects the ethical obligation to provide care that is informed by current clinical knowledge and best practices. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to dismiss the client’s spiritual beliefs as irrelevant to their mental health presentation, focusing exclusively on a purely clinical interpretation derived from the DSM-5. This approach fails to recognize the interconnectedness of a client’s spiritual life and their overall mental and emotional well-being, potentially alienating the client and hindering the therapeutic alliance. Ethical pastoral counseling requires sensitivity to the client’s worldview, and a rigid adherence to a purely clinical framework without integration can be detrimental. A further incorrect approach involves attempting to “diagnose” solely through spiritual discernment or scripture, without any reference to the symptom clusters and diagnostic criteria established by the DSM-5. While spiritual insights can be valuable, they do not substitute for clinical assessment. This can lead to inaccurate labeling of distress, potentially causing spiritual harm or delaying appropriate clinical intervention, thereby violating the counselor’s duty of care. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes a thorough client assessment, integrating all relevant aspects of their lives, including their spiritual beliefs and practices, alongside their presenting symptoms and functional impairments. This framework necessitates a working knowledge of the DSM-5 and its application in identifying mental health conditions, while also recognizing the unique context of pastoral counseling. The goal is to achieve a diagnosis that is both clinically sound and ethically sensitive to the client’s spiritual identity, leading to a treatment plan that is comprehensive and effective.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between a pastoral counselor’s theological commitments and the diverse belief systems of clients seeking support. The counselor must navigate this intersection with sensitivity, respect for client autonomy, and adherence to ethical guidelines that prioritize client well-being and professional boundaries. Careful judgment is required to ensure that theological perspectives inform, rather than dictate, the counseling process, and that the counselor does not impose their beliefs inappropriately. The approach that represents best professional practice involves integrating theological understanding into the counseling framework in a way that is client-centered and ethically sound. This means using theological concepts as lenses through which to understand human experience, suffering, and growth, but always in dialogue with the client’s own worldview and presenting concerns. The counselor’s theological foundation should inform their empathy, their understanding of hope and resilience, and their ability to offer spiritual resources when appropriate and desired by the client. This approach is correct because it upholds the ethical principle of client autonomy, ensuring that the client remains the primary agent in their own healing journey. It respects the client’s right to self-determination and avoids imposing personal beliefs, which is a cornerstone of ethical pastoral counseling practice as outlined by professional bodies that emphasize client welfare and non-coercion. An approach that inappropriately prioritizes the counselor’s theological agenda over the client’s immediate needs and autonomy is professionally unacceptable. This would involve subtly or overtly steering the client towards specific theological doctrines or interpretations as the primary solution to their problems, regardless of the client’s own spiritual or religious background. This fails to respect client autonomy and can lead to spiritual distress or alienation, violating the ethical imperative to “do no harm.” Another professionally unacceptable approach is to completely compartmentalize theological beliefs from the counseling practice, treating them as entirely separate domains. While maintaining professional boundaries is crucial, a pastoral counselor’s theological foundation is integral to their identity and approach. Ignoring it entirely can lead to a less authentic and potentially less effective counseling experience, as the counselor may not be able to draw upon the full breadth of their understanding and resources. This can also create an internal conflict for the counselor, potentially impacting their ability to be fully present and effective. Finally, an approach that uses theological language and concepts without a clear understanding of their impact on the client, or without assessing the client’s receptivity to such discussions, is also ethically problematic. This can lead to miscommunication, confusion, and a sense of being misunderstood or judged by the client. Effective pastoral counseling requires a nuanced application of theological insights, grounded in an understanding of the client’s context and a commitment to clear, respectful communication. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a continuous cycle of self-reflection on one’s theological framework and its potential application, careful assessment of the client’s presenting issues and their spiritual or existential dimensions, and a commitment to open dialogue with the client about the role of faith and spirituality in their life and in the counseling process. Ethical guidelines and professional supervision should be consulted to ensure that practice remains client-centered, respectful, and aligned with the highest standards of pastoral care.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because the counselor is tasked with balancing the theological concept of grace with the practical and ethical demands of pastoral counseling. The client’s request for unconditional acceptance, while rooted in a desire for grace, could potentially conflict with the counselor’s responsibility to address harmful behaviors and promote the client’s well-being, which may involve accountability and change. Navigating this requires careful discernment to offer genuine grace without enabling destructive patterns. The best professional approach involves integrating the concept of grace as a foundation for unconditional positive regard and a catalyst for transformation, rather than a passive acceptance of all behaviors. This approach recognizes that true grace, within a pastoral counseling context, empowers individuals towards growth and healing. It involves affirming the client’s inherent worth while gently guiding them to examine the consequences of their actions and explore pathways to change. This aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the client’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), as well as the core tenets of pastoral care which often emphasize redemption and restoration. The counselor offers grace by creating a safe, non-judgmental space where the client feels loved and accepted, which in turn fosters the trust necessary for them to confront difficult truths and embrace personal responsibility. An approach that solely focuses on accepting all behaviors without any exploration of their impact or potential for change fails to uphold the counselor’s ethical duty to promote the client’s well-being. While appearing compassionate, this can inadvertently enable harmful patterns, leading to further distress for the client and potentially others. This approach misinterprets grace as a license for inaction or avoidance of difficult conversations, rather than as a force for positive transformation. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the client’s understanding of grace and impose a rigid, punitive framework. This would violate the principle of unconditional positive regard, essential for building therapeutic rapport, and could alienate the client, hindering any potential for progress. It also fails to acknowledge the client’s spiritual framework, which is central to pastoral counseling. A third incorrect approach might involve offering grace in a way that is conditional upon the client immediately demonstrating specific changes. This misunderstands the nature of grace, which is typically understood as unmerited favor. Imposing such conditions can create pressure and anxiety, undermining the therapeutic process and the client’s sense of worth. Professionals should employ a decision-making process that begins with understanding the client’s presenting issues and their spiritual framework. This involves active listening and empathic engagement to grasp the client’s perception of grace. The counselor then integrates this understanding with ethical guidelines and professional best practices, considering how to offer genuine acceptance while also facilitating growth and accountability. This requires a nuanced approach that avoids extremes, recognizing that grace and transformation are not mutually exclusive but can be deeply intertwined in the healing process.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the counselor’s personal history with the client’s family, creating a dual relationship and potential for bias. Maintaining professional objectivity and ensuring the client’s well-being are paramount, necessitating careful consideration of ethical guidelines and the counselor’s capacity to provide unbiased care. The approach that represents best professional practice involves recognizing the inherent conflict of interest and prioritizing the client’s best interests by referring them to a counselor without a prior relationship. This aligns with ethical principles of avoiding dual relationships and conflicts of interest, which are fundamental to maintaining professional boundaries and ensuring objective, effective counseling. The BCPC Code of Ethics, for instance, emphasizes the importance of avoiding situations where a counselor’s personal interests could compromise their professional judgment or exploit the client. A referral in this situation upholds the principle of client welfare by ensuring they receive counseling from a practitioner who can offer an unbiased perspective and is not influenced by past personal connections. An incorrect approach involves proceeding with counseling while attempting to manage the personal history. This fails to adequately address the inherent risk of bias and the potential for the dual relationship to negatively impact the therapeutic process. Ethical codes strongly advise against dual relationships when they are likely to impair objectivity or exploit the client. Another incorrect approach is to terminate counseling abruptly without a proper referral. This abandons the client and fails to ensure continuity of care, which is a violation of ethical responsibilities to support the client’s ongoing therapeutic needs. Finally, an approach that involves disclosing personal history to the client to “level the playing field” is also professionally unacceptable. While transparency is important, this specific disclosure risks shifting the focus from the client’s needs to the counselor’s personal experiences, further blurring professional boundaries and potentially creating an uncomfortable or exploitative dynamic. Professional decision-making in such situations requires a systematic process: first, identify potential ethical conflicts and dual relationships. Second, assess the potential impact of these conflicts on the client’s welfare and the therapeutic relationship. Third, consult relevant ethical codes and seek supervision or consultation if necessary. Fourth, prioritize the client’s best interests, which may necessitate a referral to another professional. Fifth, document the decision-making process and the rationale for any actions taken.