The present study is concerned with the ethical dilemmas of setting goals in therapy. The main questions that the study is trying to answer are: who is to set the goals for therapy and who is to decide when they have been reached.

The study is based on four semi-structured, phenomenological interviews with four practi-tioners with different degrees of experience. These interviews were done in the period between the 28th of February 2011 and the 25th of March 2011. The interviews were con-ducted on the basis of an interview guide that was produced by the author of this report. The interview guide was piloted on the 11th of January 2011 and revised accordingly. The interviews lasted about an hour and were transcribed immediately after they had been carried out.

The analysis of the material from the interviews was based on the framework of the Inter-pretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), with minor changes to the procedure of catego-rization. The analysis revealed 19 themes whereof ten were relevant for the formulated problem of the study. These ten themes are expanded upon in the analysis section of this report and include such themes as: revision of goals, the will of the patient, termination of therapy evaluation of therapy etc.

One of the main findings of the study was based on the concept of “therapist neutrality”. Even though the therapist is meant to be neutral in his work with clients, this study shows that it is more or less impossible for the therapist to do this. Even if he/she adheres closely to a certain theory, his/her neutrality can be questioned. The implications for the study are many and far reaching; the lack of neutrality that the therapist displays is of course prob-lematic. However, this is only because neutrality is what is demanded from the Ethical Prin-ciples of Nordic Psychologists. It is discussed to some extend if neutrality should really be the main characteristic of a therapists work. In connection to this, concerns are voiced on the problem of the therapists basing their treatment decisions on ethical principles more than theory.

The discussion centers on the “perceived neutrality” of the therapist. This notion is covered extensively and different perspectives in relation to the original problem formulation are related to this. The issues with the methodological approach are discussed in detail and other issues are discussed as well. The results are analytically generalized using the frame-work of positioning theory as presented by Ron Harré (In press, 2002).

It is concluded that determining goals in therapy is a process that is based on collaboration between the therapist and the client, and the decision of whether a goal is reached is also based on collaboration between the client and the therapist. However, these do not seem to be “sterile” processes as both the client and the therapist might have different agendas when going through those processes. It seemed like the therapists that participated in this study are not fully aware of the power that is inherent in their positions as therapists. If this is neglected on purpose or if it is a result of ignorance, is never fully uncovered.