They didn’t phrase it like that, they said the University allowed referrals for secular purposes but not for religious ones, but I think that any reasonable person would come to concusion that the issues mentioned above are implied.

December 13, 2012 at 4:26 pm

“That was the opinion of the judges where they’ve stated that University was allowing to practice referral for its practicum students for secular reasons but not for religious ones. ”

Again, I’d ask you to cite the specific text where it says the university would allow referrals in all cases except in cases of abortion, teen sex, pre-marital sex, non-celibate gays. I see nothing in the decision that supports that claim.

December 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm

“I got my impression after reading the decision of Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Can you post the specific passages (or just post the page number/paragraph)?

I’ve read the entire decision and I see nothing that supports the notion the University would allow any referral except in cases of abortion, teen sex, pre-marital sex, non-celibate gays.

I think you are right about what you said in your last paragraph: the lawsuit was about the University setting specific standards for their MS in Counseling program, and these particular standards appeared legally questionable to the defendant. To me, it appeared like the University was fine with their students referring all patients in case a conflict of interest arise, with an exception for patients such as teenagers wanting to have premarital sex, women wanting to perform abortions, and non-celibate gays. As far as I understand the ACA Code of Ethics, there is no distinction regarding who can and cannot be referred whenever a moral dilemma arises between a counselor and a patient.

December 12, 2012 at 12:59 pm

“To me, it appeared like the University was fine with their students referring all patients in case a conflict of interest arise, with an exception for patients such as teenagers wanting to have premarital sex, women wanting to perform abortions, and non-celibate gays. ”

I’m curious as to where you got this impression about the University’s policies regarding referrals.

Did you follow the link to the previous discussion? If you do, you should see that, while the focus was on the referral, there was more than just a referral issue. There was a department hearing (because of the referral) that Ward testified at. And her testimony at that hearing indicated that Ward was willing to discard research based on her religious beliefs (ex: Ward testified she believe homosexuality was a choice).

If you ever read the decision of Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for this case (it’s rather long, though), you will see that the Court has found evidence that Ward was trying to get help from her professors by asking them what she should do, but it was them who told her to refer the patient, and after that they told she behaved unethically, despite the fact that the University had no official “NO Referral” policy for practicum students. Thus, the Court found their actions to be very problematic.

They didn’t phrase it like that, they said the University allowed referrals for secular purposes but not for religious ones, but I think that any reasonable person would come to concusion that the issues mentioned above are implied.