Inside the AOTA Code of Ethics Revision: A Comprehensive Analysis

AOTA members and others following the Code of Ethics revision process have likely heard commentary about whether the process was adequate, whether concerns were fully considered, and whether the final document reflects broad-based member input. This analysis provides a look "inside the sausage-making," offering a window into how the discussions actually unfolded, who participated, what themes emerged, and how decisions were made. The analysis is grounded in available evidence.

This review critically examines how the AOTA Representative Assembly and Task Group 4 considered and approved proposed revisions to the 2025 Code of Ethics. It evaluates participation patterns, the nature of deliberations, the level of philosophical engagement, and the degree of staff influence. The goal is to provide an evidence-based, fair, and constructive evaluation of the process, along with recommendations for improving future ethical review procedures.

(This analysis is based on available discussion records and task group assignments that are publicly accessible to AOTA members; it acknowledges that additional undocumented conversations may have occurred.)

Narrative Summary

The review of the proposed revisions to the AOTA Code of Ethics unfolded over two main stages between February 10 and March 5, 2025.

Early Stage (February 10–18): This phase took place in an open Representative Assembly (RA) forum. Participants were encouraged to review the Ethics Commission’s draft revisions and share general feedback. The tone was informal and exploratory, and participants were not required to record formal votes.

Later Stage (February 21–28): This phase involved a formal review by Task Group 4 (TG4), which was assigned specific responsibility for the Code revisions. TG4 members used a "red/yellow/green" voting system to express positions on individual changes and the draft as a whole. Discussions became more structured, with preparation for final voting recommendations.

The Ethics Commission, particularly through its Chair, provided substantial guidance during both phases, emphasizing procedural clarifications on:

  • Replacing “equality” with “equity” in the Core Values

  • Deleting and redistributing the “Professional Civility” section

  • Removing language deemed difficult to enforce (such as "respect" in Standard 1E)

  • Adding "advocacy" as a formal Core Value

  • Addressing emerging technologies like AI, though in a limited fashion

Rather than grappling deeply with philosophical questions, participants largely accepted procedural clarifications. Initial uncertainties gave way to acceptance after explanations were provided.

Illustrative Discussion Examples

Several exchanges during the task group discussions capture the overall tenor of the deliberations:

  • When concerns about shifting from “equality” to “equity” surfaced, participants initially raised questions about enforceability and fairness. However, after brief reassurances that equity better reflected AOTA's DEI principles, most shifted to approval without further debate.

  • Similarly, when the deletion of the “Professional Civility” section was discussed, participants expressed some uncertainty but quickly accepted reassurances that the concepts had been redistributed elsewhere, without verifying whether the ethical meaning had been preserved.

  • Very limited concern was expressed about the addition of “advocacy” as a core value. There was no extended discussion about whether embedding systemic advocacy could conflict with client-centered practice.

These examples reflect a broader pattern: procedural reassurances drove consensus, while deeper ethical inquiry was largely bypassed.

Critique of the Process

Procedural Adequacy

The basic procedural framework — draft distribution, discussion boards, assigned task group, voting color codes, and Zoom follow-ups — was adequate in structure. However, the process leaned heavily toward achieving procedural acceptance rather than encouraging critical deliberation. Clarifications from the Ethics Commission often steered participants quickly toward alignment without promoting open philosophical debate.

Member Participation and Patterns

Participation within Task Group 4 was incomplete. Of the 13 assigned voting members, around 8 or 9 posted at least once in the written discussions, while approximately 4 to 5 either did not post or contributed minimally. Thus, roughly 30–40% of assigned voting members did not visibly engage. Among those who did participate, many offered only procedural remarks rather than engaging deeply with ethical frameworks or long-term implications.

Patterns of participation revealed that a small group — about 5 to 7 individuals — formed the high-participation core. Many others posted once or twice, mainly registering votes without elaboration, and several assigned voting members had no visible contribution at all. Broader RA member engagement was similarly limited.

Role of Staff and Non-Elected Members

Staff members and non-elected individuals — including Ethics Commission representatives and governance directors — played a visible and influential role in shaping the discussions. Substantive explanations and procedural direction predominantly came from staff leadership, with RA members largely responding to staff framing rather than independently driving critical dialogue.

Assessment of Appropriateness of Deliberation Level

When revising a profession’s Code of Ethics, the expected standard for deliberation should be extraordinarily high. A Code of Ethics defines the profession’s moral identity, frames its obligations to society, and supports its legitimacy as a self-regulating body. Revising it demands critical, multi-perspective dialogue — not just procedural compliance.

The deliberative process observed here did not meet that standard. What should have been philosophical debate often became administrative validation. Critical questions about neutrality, pluralism, and the risks of systemic advocacy mandates were largely left unexamined.

The level of discussion was insufficient for the gravity of the task.

Next Steps and Recommendations

  • Reopen Structured Deliberation: Convene a full Assembly-wide structured dialogue focused on ethical frameworks, not just document language.

  • Solicit Minority Reports: Allow and formally record dissenting or alternative philosophical viewpoints.

  • Engage External Ethical Experts: Invite independent review to broaden and deepen ethical reflection.

  • Develop Philosophical White Papers: Produce explanatory documents on key conceptual shifts.

  • Strengthen Member Engagement: Expand member consultation early in future revisions.

  • Create a Standard of Ethical Review: Require heightened standards for revisions to foundational ethical documents.

Final Conclusion

The revisions to the AOTA Code of Ethics were procedurally completed, but the process lacked the philosophical rigor and critical depth required for a document of such importance. If the profession’s ethical foundation is to remain credible and strong, a much higher standard of deliberative excellence must be demanded moving forward.

Methodological Note

This analysis was developed using a combination of traditional qualitative review methods and AI tools. The process included:

  • Systematic reading and thematic coding of available discussion records and task group assignments, following approaches similar to those used in qualitative research platforms such as NVivo.

  • AI tools were employed to assist with organizing themes, extracting participation patterns, and drafting narrative summaries.

All interpretations, conclusions, and critical reflections were generated by the human author; AI was used solely as an organizational aid to enhance efficiency.

Care was taken to avoid identifying individuals unnecessarily, focusing instead on broader participation patterns and governance themes. This approach enabled efficient synthesis while maintaining human responsibility for the final analysis. The goal was to offer a fair, critical, and evidence-based evaluation of the process leading to the proposed revisions of the AOTA Code of Ethics.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reflecting on the AOTA Code of Ethics: A 2025 Crossroads

Image
In light of the proposed 2025 revisions to the AOTA Code of Ethics, I feel compelled to respond—not just as a practitioner and educator, but as someone who has been observing and writing about the profession’s ethical evolution for over a decade. This post reflects on concerns raised in the new draft and situates them in a broader historical context drawn from earlier critiques I published in 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015. When Ethics Become Ideology The proposed 2025 Code of Ethics contains well-meaning language that reflects cultural currents around equity, inclusion, and advocacy. However, the revised document appears to shift the Code away from its core purpose—guiding ethical behavior—and toward promoting a specific ideological framework. It contains language and assumptions that may unintentionally alienate practitioners, obscure clarity in enforcement, and conflate professional conduct with political conformity. A Critical Logic Problem The most serious concern is the...
Read more

On retained primitive reflexes

Each year I receive several emails from colleagues about 'retained primitive reflexes.'  I am also seeing an increased number of reports from local 'health care' providers who are documenting these alleged problems so I thought I would write a summary of my opinion on this topic.   Predatory 'health care' providers including some OTs, PTs, chiropractors, and behavioral optometrists are creating a new 'market' for treating this alleged 'problem.'  Parents should be very wary of these practitioners and other professionals should challenge these practices whenever they are seen. The following is the kind of information that causes concern and was provided to me by a colleague as a sample from a student's IEP: The student continues to demonstrate the following retained primitive reflexes that at times interfere with his ability to demonstrate appropriate adaptive responses: Fear Paralysis Reflex, Moro Reflex, Palmer Reflex, Tonic Labyri...
Read more

The Ant Mill of Occupational Therapy: A Profession Trapped in Its Own Spiral

Image
Being in program development mode has given me both the time and headspace to think more deeply about some of the broader dynamics shaping our profession. The release of AOTA’s newly published Vision Statement and the proposed changes to the Code of Ethics have provided a catalyst for deeper reflection. Ethics in occupational therapy can feel distant or overly academic—something shaped by committees and frameworks rather than day-to-day practice. I’m someone who has worn both hats—a street-level OT who’s spent too much time in academia—and that gives me a particular vantage point for reflecting on where we’ve been and where we might be headed. I’m writing this for the lunch-bucket practitioners out there—the ones grounded in clinical realities—who have sensed that something in our professional dialogue feels increasingly unfamiliar or prescribed. But I think we need to bring these conversations down to earth. We need to pull chairs into a circle, metaphorically speaking, and talk thr...
Read more