Ethics in rural and remote practice doesn’t look like ethics in metropolitan practice.
The 2025 PsyBA Code of Conduct and expanded APS guidance acknowledges this explicitly, not by lowering expectations, but by recognising context.
In smaller communities:
- You may see your client at the grocery store
- Your child may attend school with their child
- There may be one GP, one psychologist, and no psychiatrist
- Referral options may be limited or non-existent
The ethical questions don’t disappear, they just become more nuanced.
In urban settings, we often talk about avoiding dual relationships as though it’s entirely controllable.
In rural communities, avoidance may be unrealistic. The task becomes management rather than elimination.
Ask yourself:
- Is this dual relationship unavoidable?
- Does it create a power imbalance?
- Can expectations be clarified early?
- Are there safeguards I can put in place?
- Have I documented my reasoning?
The key isn’t perfection, it’s transparency and defensibility.
Distance matters.
If a client is at acute risk:
- How long will emergency services take?
- What local crisis teams exist?
- Is there hospital access?
- Is telehealth a viable adjunct or would it be insufficient?
The guidelines reinforce that knowing your local ecosystem is part of ethical practice.
Telehealth increases access but it doesn’t erase geography.
In smaller communities, there is often an unspoken pressure to “just help” because no one else can.
That pressure can push practitioners to:
- extend beyond scope
- take on high-risk cases alone
- blur boundaries
- delay referral
The 2025 guidance gently reminds us:
Working within competence is not selfish.
It protects both the client and the psychologist.
Sometimes the most ethical decision is: “I cannot provide this service safely, and here is the plan to find someone who can.”
The shift in 2025 is not about stricter rules.
It’s about recognising that context must be actively considered in:
- boundary management
- referral decisions
- emergency planning
- sustainability of practice
Ethical practice in rural settings is not weaker. It is often more complex, and more deliberate.
