Re: CHP "...standards for ethical conduct..." -Reply

[rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (ronald kathren)]

Paul --

It's great to offer general criticisms, but better to provide specific
suggestions for improvement.

Ron


>G'day 
>
>Ron Kathren wrote;
>>Wes -- Well put.  Ron
>In support of Wes Dunn's comments:
>>> This [Rich's comment] is obviously a false arguement.  The
>>>purposes and activities of the AAHP is not necessarily the same as
>>>how those purposes and activities are carried out OR the purposes
>>>and activities of the officers of the AAHP.
>
>The proposed code of ethics demands that CHPs support the academy's
>activities. Insofar as certification is sometimes a job requirement
>and insofar as CHPs have gone to a great deal of time, effort and
>expense to become certified, this proposed code of ethics should be
>taken seriously. It is perfectly reasonable to insist that the
>Academy be very specific as to the activities we are being required
>to support, otherwise we are writing a blank check.  So I ask: 
>
>"What specific activities does the code state we are required to
>support?" 
>
>I have no problem with someone distinguishing in his/her own mind the
>difference between an activity and how an activity is carried out,
>but Rich's interpretation that an activity is something that actually
>takes place, is equally valid. Why not refer to these activities
>(which Wes and Ron interpret in a passive sense) as goals or
>functions and specify what the darn things are?
>
>My biggest problems with the proposed code of ethics are that it is
>frequently ambiguous and primarily consists of positions that sound
>nice but are little more than feel good statements. It should be
>brief, to the point and unambiguously say what it means. If
>reasonable people can strongly disagree as to what the meaning of the
>code is, the thing needs to be rewritten and this appears to be the
>case.
>
>N'est ce pas?  ;-)
>
>Paul Frame
>
>