On the BACB’s Ethics Requirements: A Response to Rosenberg and Schwartz (2019)

Sellers et al. (2020) wrote a reply to Rosenberg and Schwartz. Those authors said the BACB ethics code should let BCBAs bend rules for each unique case. Sellers defended the current fixed rules. The paper is a position piece, not a data study.

The authors found no legal or professional need to swap fixed rules for flexible ones. They said clear, stable rules protect clients and hold the field together.

Luke et al. (2018) paved the way. They showed the same code works for both autism and OBM cases. Sellers keeps that line: keep one code for all settings.

Britton et al. (2021) took the idea further. They built checklists that stop the top three violations Sellers wants to prevent. Defense plus tools equals stronger ethics.

Mathur et al. (2022) and Levy et al. (2022) seem to push back. They ask for new parts on cultural humility and anti-racism. Sellers says the code is fine as is. The clash is mostly timing: defend first, expand later.

If you supervise RBTs or train new BCBAs, this paper gives you talking points when trainees ask why we can't just 'use clinical judgment' instead of the code. Point to Sellers: fixed rules reduce risk, ease reporting, and keep licensure boards calm. Pair it with Britton's checklists and you have both the why and the how ready for your next staff meeting.