498 VERGES addressed, together with the suggestion that a different approach should be implemented to inte- grate the context into ethical decision making. Examples of the application of this approach to nedical and rural settings are provided. Finally, the implications of these suggestions to training ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING MODELS Ethical decision-making models originally emerged as a response to the limitations of mandatory ethics, centered in the creation of universal principles and standards that guide the ethical behav ior of psychologists in the most diverse situations(Tymchuk, 1982). As stated by Stephen Behnke (Barnett, Behnke, Rosenthal, Koocher, 2007), the idea that the correct answer to an ethical di- lemma comes from external prescriptions was considered both impossible and undesirable. It was impossible because the complexity of situations in which psychologists are involved make it im- practicable to create a standard for every single ethical problem. It was also undesirable because it implied the idea of psychologists as passive appliers of ethical prescriptions. In contrast, ethical lecision-making models promoted an active processing of ethical principles and standards in or der to generate a creative response to a particular ethical problem( Seitz o Neill, 1996).More- over, ethical decision-making models analyze ethical behavior in the light of the process through which a course of action is selected, instead of just considering the final action. This implies that a right action"is discerned not only by its consequences but also by reviewing the steps that led to it( Garfat ricks, 1995) In a review of the ethical decision-making models proposed between 1984 and 1998, Cottone and Claus(2000) analyzed theoretically and empirically based models. Among the models cluded in their review, there are some that consider contextual issues in the process. For example, the feminist model of Hill, Glaser, and Harden(1998) considers the social context in which the ethical dilemma arises. Similarly, Betan(1997) developed a model based on hermeneutics, incor- porating the context in which the therapeutic relationship occurs into the narrating process that characterizes ethical decision making according this author. Furthermore, Cottone's (2001) social constructivist approach states that the process of solving an ethical dilemma takes place in the in- teraction among people and not in the individual mind of the psychotherapist. However, none of these models provide explicit guidelines on how the context should be incorporated in the process Moreover, with the exception of Welfel's(2006)model, which includes a first step of developing ethical sensitivity, most models reviewed by Cottone and Claus start with the identification of rel- evant aspects of the problem, that is, they consider the ethical dilemma as the starting point for ethical deliberation and do not mention preventive steps to impede the occurrence of the ethical dilemma One of the models reviewed by Cottone and Claus is the one proposed by garfat and Ricks (1995) for clinical work in child and youth care, which deserves special attention here. In this model, the activity of the self is the core of ethical behavior. The self processes the influences of contextual values, codes of ethics, and standards through a critical and reflective analysis that gen erates a decision given a context of ethical practice. Once the action is taken, its consequences are evaluated and integrated as feedback to the process and the self. Thus, the whole process is said to be driven by the self, implying a more personalized interpretation and application of general stan- dards that takes into account the context in which the decision must be made. However in thisaddressed, together with the suggestion that a different approach should be implemented to inte￾grate the context into ethical decision making. Examples of the application of this approach to medical and rural settings are provided. Finally, the implications of these suggestions to training in ethics are discussed. ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING MODELS Ethical decision-making models originally emerged as a response to the limitations of mandatory ethics, centered in the creation of universal principles and standards that guide the ethical behav￾ior of psychologists in the most diverse situations (Tymchuk, 1982). As stated by Stephen Behnke (Barnett, Behnke, Rosenthal, & Koocher, 2007), the idea that the correct answer to an ethical di￾lemma comes from external prescriptions was considered both impossible and undesirable. It was impossible because the complexity of situations in which psychologists are involved make it im￾practicable to create a standard for every single ethical problem. It was also undesirable because it implied the idea of psychologists as passive appliers of ethical prescriptions. In contrast, ethical decision-making models promoted an active processing of ethical principles and standards in or￾der to generate a creative response to a particular ethical problem (Seitz & O’Neill, 1996). More￾over, ethical decision-making models analyze ethical behavior in the light of the process through which a course of action is selected, instead of just considering the final action. This implies that a “right action” is discerned not only by its consequences but also by reviewing the steps that led to it (Garfat & Ricks, 1995). In a review of the ethical decision-making models proposed between 1984 and 1998, Cottone and Claus (2000) analyzed theoretically and empirically based models. Among the models in￾cluded in their review, there are some that consider contextual issues in the process. For example, the feminist model of Hill, Glaser, and Harden (1998) considers the social context in which the ethical dilemma arises. Similarly, Betan (1997) developed a model based on hermeneutics, incor￾porating the context in which the therapeutic relationship occurs into the narrating process that characterizes ethical decision making according this author. Furthermore, Cottone’s (2001) social constructivist approach states that the process of solving an ethical dilemma takes place in the in￾teraction among people and not in the individual mind of the psychotherapist. However, none of these models provide explicit guidelines on how the context should be incorporated in the process. Moreover, with the exception of Welfel’s (2006) model, which includes a first step of developing ethical sensitivity, most models reviewed by Cottone and Claus start with the identification of rel￾evant aspects of the problem, that is, they consider the ethical dilemma as the starting point for ethical deliberation and do not mention preventive steps to impede the occurrence of the ethical dilemma. One of the models reviewed by Cottone and Claus is the one proposed by Garfat and Ricks (1995) for clinical work in child and youth care, which deserves special attention here. In this model, the activity of the self is the core of ethical behavior. The self processes the influences of contextual values, codes of ethics, and standards through a critical and reflective analysis that gen￾erates a decision given a context of ethical practice. Once the action is taken, its consequences are evaluated and integrated as feedback to the process and the self. Thus, the whole process is said to be driven by the self, implying a more personalized interpretation and application of general stan￾dards that takes into account the context in which the decision must be made. However, in this 498 VERGÉS Downloaded by [Shanghai Jiaotong University] at 07:04 23 May 2012