ETHICAL DILEMMAS AND LIMITS OF RESPONSIBILITY WHEN CONDUCTING PSYCHOLOGICAL CORRECTION IN WARTIME CONDITIONS

Abstract

The work of a psychologist in Ukraine today is a unique experience on a global scale, as specialists work in a state of chronic extremism, where the border between the front and the rear is very conditional due to constant missile threats. Accordingly, the psychologist and the client interact in conditions of a shared traumatic reality. The results of the empirical study (PCL-5, Post-Traumatic Growth Questionnaire) indicate a statistically significant difference between the groups: students demonstrate a higher intensity of intrusions and negative cognitions combined with “unprotected openness”, while practicing teachers demonstrate “pragmatic resilience” through mastering new professional opportunities, which indicates the need for a differentiated approach to ethical training of specialists, where the priority for future psychologists is the mastery of algorithms of safe compassion, and for experienced practitioners - strategies for restoring professional meanings within the framework of a shared traumatic reality. Accordingly, there is an urgent need to transition from the ethics of stability to the “field ethics” of survival, where the principle of harm minimization and the therapist’s self-preservation become fundamental imperatives. Special attention is paid to the ethical dilemmas of identification, neutralization of prejudices, and the transition from deep transformation of the personality to strategies of stabilization and testimony. It is emphasized that in war conditions, professional ethics is transformed into a life support system that allows a specialist to maintain stability within the framework of a com mon traumatic field. Ukrainian experience of working in military everyday life creates a basis for revising global crisis assistance protocols. Traditional models based on strict distance and stability of therapeutic protocols turn out to be insufficient in situations of chronic extremism. Instead, Ukrainian practice suggests a transition to a model of adaptive resilience, where the legitimization of the therapist’s vulnerability and the ethics of self-preservation become new standards of professional viability in global conflict zones. Prospects for further research are seen in a comparative analysis of domestic adaptive strategies with international experience in the functioning of psychological assistance in war zones.