The following Case study will explore Case Study B. Case study B illustrates an ethical dilemma from a social worker Sandra and her client Tom, a young, profoundly deaf male. As a result of Tom breaking rules of his current probation order, Sandra felt she was left with only two choices. The first choice being, hand him over to the judicial system, as her governing professional code of ethics would guide. The second choice being, to ignore her professional code of ethics and follow her personal code of ethics, by denying Tom of autonomy and forcing him into the care of a specialist psychiatric unit for the deaf (Harrison, 2007). This case study will describe Ethics, then will go on to elaborate by exploring Teleology Ethics, Utilitarianism, and virtue Ethics, as Sandra's personal code of Ethics aligns with theses. It will then assess the Australian community workers association, Code of Ethics, and evaluate to what degree Sandra followed it, and if her decision was ultimately ethical or unethical.
Ethics is concerned with the sets of values, attitudes, and moral principles that guide an individual's concept of what is right and wrong, and of how one should or should not behave. Since Ethics is concerned with the motive behind the behavior, and individuals' moral knowledge dramatically differs. Some multiple Ethical frameworks and theories explain the different ways of understanding and applying Ethical solutions to contemporary situations (McAuliffe, 2018).
Teleological Ethics is a framework that bases the value of action primarily on its outcomes or consequences and is sometimes referred to as consequentialism (Peslak, 2015). In Case Study B, Sandra's actions, following her ethical dilemma, resonate with teleological Ethics. Sandra believed that by doing her job and handing Tom over to the judicial system, Tom would not be able to cope, and the worst-case scenario was that he might end up dead through neglect. Sandra instead decided to force Tom into care at a psychiatric hospital, with the intention that he may be able to achieve something with his life. Yeung, Ho, Lo & Chan (2009) state that specific actions are to be performed because they are right by virtue of their consequences, and the latter choice had the best consequences for Tom. From a Teleological framework, Sandra can rationalize working unethically because it resulted in the best consequences.
It could seem that Sandra was following the theory of Utilitarianism, which falls under Teleology, as she was working on a case by case basis. Because the Utilitarian ethical action in any situation is the one that yields more utility than any other available actions, and to force Tom into care is more helpful than leaving him at the hands of the system.
Nussbaum (1999) believes individuals can be 'Unconsciously Utilitarian', because using common sense, like justifying actions by predicting their outcome, is unconsciously Utilitarian. Sandra could justify her decision to act unethically because it maximized Toms's wellbeing. However, Utilitarianism Ethics promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. I believe Sandra was working 'Unconsciously Utilitarian' but engaged with Virtue Ethics because she took in all parts of Toms's human experience and their role in the ethical deliberation to come to a conclusion that would be holistically beneficial to Tom.
Virtue Ethics aims to develop one's character. It is concerned with what drives a person to do what is morally right. Individuals' morals are formed through their habits and characteristics such as courage, generosity, and empathy.
According to traditional virtue ethicists, like Aristotle, virtues are not related dispositions performing stereotypical actions associated with a given trait, but rather, virtues are dispositions to respond appropriately – in judgment, feeling, and action – to one's situation (Kamtekar, 2004, p477).
McBeath and Webb (2002) write that in virtue ethics, the virtuousness of an action lies in the persons in a context of moral appraisal and their motivations and dispositions in the execution and aims of their actions. Sandra's motivation to make the latter choice in her ethical dilemma was because she felt she had a duty of care to compensate Tom in any way she could. Because she looked holistically at Tom as a person and what he has experienced, it leads her to believe that Tom was a product of a system that failed him on every level. So she 'took it on herself to become his mentor and put him on the right track.'
McBeath and Webb (2002) emphasize the importance of being able to identify the factors constituting good judgment leading to good ends that resonate within a holistic conception of the good life.
All professionals are expected to meet a standard of ethical behavior, and this requirement is often formalized through a Code of Ethics. Freud and Krug (2002) explain that Codes of Ethics outline the obligations, responsibility, and values that ought to guide our conduct and services as professionals.
In Case Study B, Sandra does not explicitly mention what code of conduct she was governed to follow. However, she does mention that she is a volunteer Social worker, so for this case study, we will explore The Australian Community Workers Association (ACWA) code of Ethics (2017).
The ACWA code of Ethics is essential because practitioners often work with the most marginalized and vulnerable groups of people in society. The codes underlying principles make sure that every person is protected against discrimination, stating that social inclusion is a human right and that every society has an obligation to provide for and deal equitably with all members, making additional provisions for those in more need (ACWA, 2017).
The ACWA Code of Ethics has eight guidelines, along with indicators of the expected standards of each. The First guideline covers Ethical practice, with indicator 1.2 stating that professionals must practice ethical behavior in every situation in accordance with the ACWA Code of Ethics (ACWA, 2017). McAuliffe (2018) details the importance of ethical principles covering a client's right to autonomy, informed consent, and confidentiality and privacy, which resonate within the professional practice expectations that create the standards in the ACWA code of Ethics. Sandra's choice to force Tom into care stripped Tom of his autonomy. She did not respect his right to make his own choice, as he stated that he did not want to go (Harrison, 2007). Since Sandra stripped Tom of his autonomy, she does not comply with indicator 1.2. However, she does comply with indicator 1.3, which requires professionals to seek advice, if required, when confronted with an ethical dilemma (ACWA, 2017). Sandra complied with indicator 1.3 because she writes about having mentors that helped guide her in the right direction (Harrison, 2007).
The second guideline covers the provision of services and supports, as they are a fundamental human right. Indicator 2.1 requires practitioners to provide services that meet the needs of individuals and facilitate their right to social justice and inclusion (ACWA, 2017). Sandra believed that the resources Tom had previously received were limited and failed him, referring to them as 'putting tar paper over a hole in a sinking ship' (Harrison, 2007). The result of Sandra's unethical decision ultimately resulted in Tom finally receiving social justice and inclusion. Sandra explains that after Tom spent seven and a half months in care, she could hardly believe the change in him. Tom was respectful, hygienic, and was now house proud; he even found part-time work and stopped drinking. Sandra even concluded that Tom continues to be a productive member of society to this day (Harrison, 2007). Indicator 2.6 requires practitioners to facilitate effective outcomes by routinely monitoring and evaluating services, and indicator 2.8 requires practitioners to advocate for service users (ACWA, 2017). Sandra complied with indicator 2.6 because she was efficient with her routine monitoring of Tom and was able to reevaluate Tom's needs when required. She also complied with indicator 2.8 because she advocated on Tom's behalf, to his probation office to wait before reporting what happened so that she could admit Tom for an evaluation in the meantime.
The fourth guideline regulates how professionals comply with governed legislation and statute. Indicator 4.1 requires practitioners to comply with legislation on mandatory reporting (ACWA, 2017), which Sandra failed to comply with as she coerced Tom's probational officer to delay his mandatory report (Harrison, 2007).
Sandra failed to comply with most of the indicators of the ACWA Code of Ethics. However, I believe that the indictors she did comply with, she handled with extreme diligence, courage, and integrity.
If Teleological Ethics is concerned with the right action being the act that leads to the best consequences, and Virtue Ethics aim is to develop one's character, the course of action Sandra employed to resolve her, and Tom's ethical dilemma was effective. The course of action was ethical because it resulted in the best consequence for Tom by facilitating his development and growth of character. If Sandra had not given Tom the opportunity to cultivate self-worth, he would never have received the chance to become the productive member of society; he is to this day. I believe the choice Sandra made was ethical because any other decision would have been unethical and as could have led to dire consequences for Tom.
This case study has depicted Sandra's ethical dilemma and how her choice aligns with Teleology Ethics and Utilitarianism and illustrates Sandra's code of Ethics as Virtue Ethics. It then evaluates to what degree Sandra followed her professional code of Ethics, the ACWA. Concluding that although her choice was unethical, it was the ethical choice to make, as it was the only decision that she believed had a positive outcome for Tom
References:
Australian Community Workers Association. (2017). Australian Community Workers Ethics and Good Practice Guide. Retrieved from http://www.acwa.org.au/resources/ACWA-Ethics- and-good-practice-guide.pdf
Freud, S. & Krug, S. (2002). Beyond the Code of Ethics, Part 1: Complexities of Ethical Decision Making in Social Work Practice. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services. 83(5/6), 474-482. https://doi- org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/10.1606%2F1044-3894.55
Harrison, S. (2007). Tom’s Story: An Unethical Tale? Ethics and social welfare. 1(2), 216- 218, DOI 10.1080/17496530701450489
Kamtekar, R. (2004). Situationism and Virtue Ethics on the Content of Our Character. Ethics. 114(3), 458-491, DOI: 10.1086/381696
McAuliffe, D. (2016). Interprofessional Ethics: Collaboration in the Social, Health and Human Services, Cambridge University Press, Singapore.
McBeath, G. & Webb, S.A. (2002). Virtue Ethics and Social Work: Being Lucky, Realistic, and now Doing ones Duty. British Journal of Social Work. 32(8), 1015-1036, DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/32.8.1015
Nussbaum, M.C. (1999). Virtue Ethics: A Misleading Category? The Journal of Ethics. 3, 163- 20. https://doi-org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/10.1023/A:1009877217694
Peslak, A.R. (2005). An Ethical Exploration of Privacy and Radio Frequency Identification. Journal of Business Ethics. 59, 327-345. DOI 10.1007/s10551-005-2928-8
Yeung, K.S.S, Ho, A.P.Y., Lo, M.C.H. & Chan, E.A. (2010) Social Work Ethical Decision Making in an Inter-Disciplinary Context. The British Journal of Social Work. 40(5), 1573-1590, https://doi.org/10.1093/bj
Bình luận