Neil Shepard's Response and Peter's Reply
Neil Shepard's Response and Peter's Reply
[Editor’s Note – The email reprinted below from Neil Shepard, who is a candidate for ASHA's Vice President for Academic Affairs in Audiology for 2011-2013, was originally sent on May 3, 2010 using blue font]
Peter Reitzes
Thanks for your concern and letter.
I believe that while ASHA has a role to play in the regard of advertising by its members it should not be in the form of an active ongoing task force. The current structure and code of ethics along with the Ethics committee is the appropriate manner in which to handle this type of issue. To actively monitor the language used in advertising services provided by members I do not feel is an appropriate use of the resources at the National Office.
The current method of handling issues of this type where an ASHA member or a member of the public feel that the the advertisement is misleading or in appropriate would be to file a complaint with the Ethics committee and let then deal with the matter as to whether the actions violate the code of ethics. Therefore, I would not be supportive of what you propose in either of your first two questions. My views in this regard are public and I have no problem with you sharing them with others.
Thanks for your inquiry.
Neil Shepard
----------
[Editor’s Note – Peter's response to Neil is below and was sent on May 3, 2010]
Neil,
Thank you for taking the time to respond and for allowing your response to be shared publicly. I give you a lot of credit for agreeing to participate in a public, open dialogue on these matters.
Having said that, I do not believe that the current manner of enforcing the code of ethics offers consumers (the people we serve) the level of protection they deserve.
Many ASHA members are hesitant to speak up and are hesitant to file ethical complaints out of a fear of litigation or retaliation or because the process is cumbersome. Yet ASHA continues to expect members to take the lead in policing one another.
You wrote, “To actively monitor the language used in advertising services provided by members I do not feel is an appropriate use of the resources at the National Office.” Let’s take a closer look at ASHA’s resources. The 2008 ASHA Audited Financial Statement reported that the Program Expenses for “Ethics” was $347,956. The 2008 ASHA 990 Form reported that ASHA’s Executive Director, Arlene A. Pietranton, made in total compensation more than $450,000. It is striking that a single person’s total compensation at ASHA is about $100,000 greater than the reported Program Expenses for ethics. If one believes that the way an organization spends its money reflects its priorities, one may rightly or wrongly assume that currently, ethical standards are not a high priority for ASHA.
Once again, thank your for engaging in this most important conversation.
Sincerely,
Peter Reitzes, MA CCC-SLP
Co-host: StutterTalk.com podcast
Posted by StutterTalk at 10/24/2007 4:18 PM 
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: stammering election stuttertalk ethics stuttering american speech language hearing association stutter stammer marketing candidates stutter talk asha slp
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: stammering election stuttertalk ethics stuttering american speech language hearing association stutter stammer marketing candidates stutter talk asha slp
Comments