Aa Meeting Reflection

Words: 454
Pages: 2

issues in your life.’ However, after reflection, this course of action would not have been beneficial to group members for two reasons. The first, is that ejecting the male member from the group may spread the belief that members with divergent opinions are not allowed into AA meetings (National Institute of Health, 2008). The second, is that the action would also propagate the view that people who have not accepted challenges faced from alcoholism, do not deserve help from society. These two consequences may have undermined group cohesion, and beliefs in the ability of AA programs to embrace people from diverse backgrounds who face different issues relating to alcoholism. The second alternative response would have been to allow the male member to remain in the meeting but discourage him from presenting his views which are clearly in conflict with the goals of the AA program. Under this circumstance, I would have said, ‘clearly your views are not consistent with the goals of AA, and I would strongly urge you to keep such views to yourself, and refrain from commenting further during the course of the meeting.’ This action would also have created negative impacts on the participants, since it would similarly have proved that the AA program does not allow divergent, or alternative views on …show more content…
The main one is equality and tolerance. According to International Association for Group Psychotherapy and Group Processes (2016), group therapists are expected to value tolerance and equality among members, and to enable solutions of conflict between groups, individuals and societies. The main ethical dilemma during the incident would be balancing the equality needs of the male participant, with the needs of other members of the AA group. Even through the male participant had the right to give his perspectives on the issue of alcoholism, the other members also had the right to give