Case Scenario: In this scenario, the counseling supervisor discovers that their colleague has been altering the scores in the outcome records of a multi-site study on treatments for severe clinical depression among teenagers. The supervisor confronts the colleague, who admits to making small changes to the scores to favor their preferred treatment method. The behavior in this scenario violates professional ethics in several ways. Firstly, it violates the American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics standard 4.01, which states that counselors should maintain objectivity and impartiality. By altering the scores to favor his preferred treatment, the colleague has compromised the objectivity and integrity of the study, potentially compromising the validity of the results. Furthermore, the colleague's actions may have violated the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct standard 1.04, which states that psychologists should strive to maintain high standards of integrity and ethical behavior in their professional activities. Ethically, the supervisor should address this violation of ethics with their colleague. They should explain the potential consequences of their actions and the impact they could have on the study and their professional reputation. The supervisor should also consider reporting the colleague's behavior to the appropriate authorities, such as the study's academic team or professional organizations like the ACA or APA. Action: As a professional counselor or psychologist, handling this situation would require a careful balance between addressing the ethical violation and maintaining a positive working relationship with the colleague. Here's a possible approach: Initially, the supervisor should have an open and honest conversation with the colleague, expressing their concerns about the altered scores and the potential impact on the study's validity. The supervisor should emphasize the importance of maintaining objectivity and impartiality in the research process. The supervisor could also provide the colleague with an opportunity to explain their actions and the motivations behind them. It's possible that the colleague did not intentionally set out to deceive or compromise the study, but rather let personal bias or a desire to promote their preferred treatment method cloud their judgment. If the colleague acknowledges the violation and expresses a willingness to make it right, the supervisor could work with them to rectify the situation. This might involve correcting the altered scores, updating the study's records, and potentially involving other members of the research team or the study's academic team in the process. Suppose the colleague is unwilling to acknowledge the violation or refuses to take responsibility for their actions. In that case, the supervisor may need to consider more formal consequences, such as reporting the behavior to the appropriate authorities or seeking additional support or guidance from their professional organization or mentor. Reflection: The Bible contains many stories that offer lessons and guidance for navigating difficult ethical dilemmas. One such story is the account of King Solomon and the Two Women in 1 Kings 3. In this story, King Solomon is faced with a difficult decision when two women both claim to be the mother of a child who has died. Solomon proposes to cut the child in half, giving half to each woman, thus solving the conflict. However, one of the women reveals that she is willing to give up her claim to the child if the other woman gets to keep him. The lesson from this story is that sometimes, the best solution to an ethical dilemma is not always the most straightforward or obvious one. It requires careful consideration of the potential consequences of our actions and an understanding of the values and principles at stake. Supporting response