The Revision of the Meta-Code (2005)

Following its approval, national associations were required to ensure that their codes were compliant and not in conflict with the Meta-code. The Task Force was re-formed as a SCE and developed guidance and engaged in dissemination (see below). It became clear that the Meta-code was indeed being used by national associations as intended, even by those with well-established codes such as the BPS that com­pletely changed its Code of Conduct (BPS, 1985) into a style based very much on the Meta-code's structure as well as content (BPS, 2009 for the most recent edition).

Nevertheless, the SCE was aware of the dangers of assuming that codes necessarily remained fit for purpose over time: the АРА has amended its code several times since 1953. Consequently, a review was undertaken by the SCE. This comprised an in-depth reflection on the 1995 Meta-code by the committee, supported by a survey of associations and invited symposia in Prague (March 2003 and October 2004) for the committee and other representatives from national associations. These symposia provided an opportunity to review it in depth in the light of experience across Europe, including consideration of ethical issues that appeared not to be addressed by the Meta-code. These SCE initiatives were supplemented by a series of contributions to the Euro­pean Meetings of Ethics in Psychology held in Lisbon and the biennial European Congresses of Psychology, where papers provided opportunities to test out the Meta-code's fit­ness for purpose and need for amendment of the original and later of the revised Meta-code (e.g., Lindsay, 1998, 2006).

In the event, those initiatives suggested that the Meta-code was highly resistant and only a small number of changes were proposed, and accepted, by the 2005 General Assembly of EFPA in Granada, Spain (EFPA, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). The changes included a reference to the use of mediation as well as corrective and disciplinary pro­cesses in the investigation and actions taken in response to alleged unethical practice. Another was a firming up of the specification of self-determination (3.1.4i) to read (italics indicate the changes):

"Maximisation of the autonomy of and self-determi­nation by a client, including the general right to engage in and to end the professional relationship with a psychologist while recognising the need to bal­ance autonomy with dependency and collective actions."

9

A new specification (3.2.3 iii) was added to the Limits of Procedures clause to take account of the need to develop new practices: during this period, evidence would be devel­oping and so practice cannot be based entirely on a strong, existing evidence base. .

"Obligation to balance the need for caution when using new methods with recognition that new areas of practice and methods will continue to emerge and that this is a positive development."

The responsibilities of psychologists were also spelled out further in a new clause (3.3.Iii) under General Responsibil­ity: "Not to bring the profession into disrepute."

Finally, a new clause 3.3.3ii was added to increase clarity regarding the Avoidance of harm. This recognized that there were circumstances when a psychologist may take actions in the absence of consent by a client. The specification stressed the increased responsibility on the psychologist in such cir­cumstances:

"Recognition of the need for particular care to be taken when undertaking research or making profes­sional judgements of persons who have not given consent."

It is interesting to compare these limited amendments with the experience of the АРА whose code has changed substan­tially over successive editions. For example, the six princi­ples of the 1992 code changed to five for the 2002 version with only two remaining the same as topics: integ­rity and respect for people's rights and dignity. Even here there were changes to wording.

By the time of the Oslo EFPA General Assembly in 2009 the number of national associations with ethical codes known to be fully compliant with the Meta-code had risen to 11: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Nordic countries, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK (Lindsay, 2009a, 2009b). Four were not yet fully compliant: Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Russia. At that time no decision had been made for Cyprus, France, and the Netherlands, as no English translations were avail­able. Other associations had not yet submitted the codes for review. In summary, therefore, one-third of EFPA's national associations were fully compliant: the next task was to ensure full compliance by those remaining.

10