The Decisions We Make In Social Work Social Work Essay

How do we do ethical determinations in societal work? Discuss the procedure exemplifying your statements with specific instance illustrations.

A Ethical consciousness is a cardinal portion of the professional pattern of societal workers. Their ability and committedness to move ethically is an indispensable facet of the quality of the service offered to those who use societal work services. It is an inevitable procedure that societal workers will happen themselves within the dimension of ethical issues which will no uncertainty dispute the person and convey approximately some critical contemplation of action. Some of the job countries where ethical issues may originate include ;

“ The fact that the trueness of societal workers is frequently in the center of conflicting involvements. The fact that societal workers map as both assistants and accountants. The struggles between the responsibilities of societal workers to protect the involvements of the people. With whom they work and social demands for efficiency and public-service corporation. The fact that resources in society are limited. ” Beckett and Maynard ( 2006 )

A A A A A This assignment will turn to some of the countries where a societal worker may run into struggle. To get down this assignment will analyze the importance of values personal, professional, social and organisational ; it will further analyze the critical demand for a shared nucleus base of professional values within societal work. It will get down to discourse the complex nature of societal work and the counsel found in the codification of moralss when societal workers face ethical quandary. It will back up this construct with a instance scenario. The assignment will so discourse another country where an ethical quandary can originate, in hazard appraisal, and will discourse utilizing a instance scenario how hazard can be managed ethically. The nucleus of the assignment will briefly sketch an attack to how an ethical determination can be made and will pull on two theoretical facets within ethical determination devising. To complete this assignment will look at moralss within partnership working where a brief scenario will back up the importance of anti-oppressive pattern and moralss within administrations. The assignment will so reason with a drumhead detailing the demand for ethical consciousness within societal work.

Every twenty-four hours societal workers are faced with nerve-racking, even traumatic state of affairss, such as domestic force, kid maltreatment, the homeless, household tenseness, mental unwellness and self-destruction. Therefore it is just to state societal workers work with the most deprived groups and vulnerable persons in society. Clark, ( 2000 ) p1 says “ The service that is provided is seen as the most combative of all the human service professions ” .

It is because of the nature of the occupation, societal workers frequently find themselves covering with tough determinations about human state of affairss that involve the potency for benefit or injury. Whilst underpinning the determination procedure is the strong outlook that societal workers must be able to equilibrate the tenseness between the rights and duties of the people who use services and the legitimate demands of the wider populace. They must besides be able to understand the deductions of, and to work efficaciously and sensitively with, people whose civilizations, beliefs or life experiences are different from their ain. In all of these state of affairss, they must recognize and set aside any personal biass they may hold. Harmonizing to Pinker, ‘social work is, basically, a moral endeavor ‘ Pinker, ( 1990 ) p14 whilst Beckett and Maynard, ( 2006 ) p189 states “ Almost all of the of import determinations that are made by societal workers have a value constituent. ”

Harmonizing to Banks, ( 2006 ) p6: ‘Values are peculiar types of belief that people hold about what is regarded as worthy or valuable’.A Valuess of the client, profession, administration and society are an intrinsic portion of determination devising. Traditional values of societal work was foremost introduced in the early 60s by Biestek. His rules outlined the rudimentss of traditional societal work and were constructed of a seven-point strategy. The rules consisted of “ Individualism, Purposeful look of feelings, Controlled emotional involvement. , Acceptance, Non-judgmental attitude, User self-government, Confidentiality ” .Biestek ( 1961 ) . Many of Biestek beliefs were really traditional and were criticised for their diverseness in their reading. Controversies associating to different rules caused many debatable decisions, for illustration individualization and confidentiality. Individualization could non be possible in the fast moving modern universe, people lose their individuality and individualization is non respected. Confidentiality has its restrictions to be enforced for illustration ; If a user portions information where person will be harmed, the societal workers responsibility is to portion it as a right to other persons. It was clear these cardinal issues had to be developed and advanced to assist societal workers. Furthermore it was considered that there must be counsel on values and moralss for societal workers, as they play a major portion in their work.

Banks, ( 2006 ) p150 says ; ‘There is acknowledgment that personal and bureau values may conflict and that the worker as a individual has a moral duty to do determinations about these struggles ‘ . Therefore the societal work profession is guided by the shared values that underpin its pattern set out in the ( GSCC 2002 ) codification of behavior. The codification is standards to steer pattern criterions and justice answerability from societal attention workers. The work burden of societal workers trades with persons who are disadvantaged in some signifier or another so it is of import to hold a shared value system to reflect the ethical jobs and dilemmas they face.A “ ‘Working from a professional value is a usher to professional behavior that maintain individuality and can protect service users from malpractice ‘ . Parrott, ( 2006 ) p17. On their ain personal values will be of limited usage. Beliefs and good purposes will non give the professional the cognition and accomplishments they need to do sense of a pattern state of affairs and intervene in it. The difference between personal and professional values include, “ professional values can be distinguished from personal values, in that personal values may non be shared by all members of an occupational group, for illustration, a individual who works as a societal worker may hold a personal belief that abortion is incorrect, but this is non one of the implicit in rules of societal work ” . Banks, ( 2006 ) , p 7.

The GSCC codifications of pattern contain a list of statements that describe the criterions of professional behavior and pattern required of societal attention workers. They are as followed ; “ protect the rights and promote the involvements of services users and carers, strive to set up and keep the trust and assurance of service users and carers, promote the independency of service users while protecting them every bit far as possible from danger or injury, Respect the rights of service users while seeking to guarantee that their behavior does non harm themselves or other people, Uphold public trust and assurance in societal attention services and Be accountable for the quality of their work and take duty for maintain and bettering their cognition and skills “ GSCC ( 2002 )

It is so barely surprising giving the complex nature of the professional function a societal worker may happen them self when doing determinations within ethical countries confronting an ethical quandary. Theaˆ?ethical quandary arises when there are ; “ two every bit unwelcome options which involves a struggle of moral rule and it is non clear which pick is right ” Banks ( 2006 ) . When societal workers struggle to make a determination they can be so guided by the codification of Ethical motives. The primary aim of the Association ‘s codification of Ethical motives is to show the values and rules which are built-in to societal work, and to give counsel on ethical pattern. BASW ( 2001 ) . Loewenverg and Dolgoff ( 1996 ) province that “ Ethic are designed to assist societal worker decide which of the two or more competing ends isaˆ?correct for their given situational ” . However aboard ethical consciousness you have to be cognizant of the publically stated values of your bureau and do adept opinions based upon your accumulated cognition and experience. Ethical considerations are seldom the duty of one worker ; nevertheless, bureaus ‘ policies and constructions of answerability offer both counsel and a criterion against which your pattern can be measured. “ Accountability, hence, is the procedure through which employers and the populace can judge the quality of single workers ‘ pattern and keep them responsible for their determinations and actions. ” ( Derek Clifford & A ; Beverley Burke 2005 )

A

Competing values and multiple-client system are two countries where a societal worker may happen themselves confronting an ethical quandary. Weather it is the societal work values that is viing against bureau values or within each a confliction of values, which will go forth the societal worker in demand to make up one’s mind which value will take precedence. Besides make up one’s minding which function the societal worker must take in order to make the right determination can take to the quandary of function confliction. Beckett and Maynard ( 2006 ) suggest that the function of a societal worker can be put into three groups: Advocacy, Direct Change Agent and Executive. “ The protagonism function can be either direct or indirect. Direct alteration agent being counselor or healer, go-between, pedagogue and accelerator, with executive function as medical social worker, attention director, duty holder, co-ordinator and service developer ” ( Beckett and Maynard 2006 p8 ) .

The GSCC ( 2002 ) codification of conductA says “ As a societal attention worker, you must endeavor to set up and keep the trust and assurance of service users and carers ” ( s2 ) , which includes “ Respecting confidential information and clearly explicating bureau policies about confidentiality to service users and carers. See the followers scenario ; whilst on arrangement a client disclosed sensitive information to a trainee societal worker sing the wellbeing of her neighbors ‘ kids. After elucidation that societal worker would hold to go through this information on to their director, the client did non wish to accept to the information being passed on. When the back uping relationship had ended, the societal worker had to so do a determination based on where there priorities ballad. As they were back uping the client who disclosed, they had a duty to continue the criterion of esteeming her confidentiality. However they besides had a duty to the wider society which in this instance was the kids who were at hazard of harm.A

A

When doing the determination they assessed all the information and weighed up the results. Do they keep back the information in order to keep the trust and regard of the client or do they prioritise the demands and hazard of the kids? They so turned to the bureau safeguarding policy and the codification of moralss for societal workers which clearly states ; “ we must non assure to maintain secrets for or about a kid or immature individual ” Agency safeguarding policy, ( 2010 ) p10 and farther provinces ; “ We aim to safeguard kids at all times, by presenting our services safely and by sharing information when there is a concern ” .p9. Clearly the value of life outweighed the demands and wants of the client in this circumstance. However to whom did the societal worker owe duty and which function should they take in this state of affairs. Banks ( 2006 ) p48 clarifies this struggle by proposing: ‘Yet while the societal worker may be able to concentrate mostly on one single service user and take on the function of advocator for the service users rights, frequently the societal worker has to take into history the rights of important aˆ?others in a state of affairs. aˆ?In the involvements of justness it may non ever be morally right to advance the service users rights at the disbursal of those of others ‘

A

The societal worker if doubting her opinion, would turn to the BASW ( 2001 ) codification of Ethical motives to steer the result of her determination, the codification states ; “ Social workers will non move without informed consent of service users, unless required by jurisprudence to protect that individual or another from hazard of serious injury ” . ( 4.1.4 p8 ) Furthermore it guides us by saying ; “ In exceeding fortunes where the precedence of the service user ‘s involvement is outweighed the demand to protect others or by legal demands, make service users aware that their involvements may be overridden. ” ( 4.1.1 B p8 ) As you can see the codification of moralss guided the societal worker to the right class of action that they should take. They were duty bound by jurisprudence to move on behalf of the persons who were at most hazard.

A

Harmonizing to Parrot ( 2010 ) p86 Hazard refers to the “ likeliness of an event go oning which in modern-day fortunes is seen as unwanted. “ A It is when confronting issues affecting hazard that values go of cardinal importance in enabling practicians to pull off hazard. See the followers scenario ; a societal worker visits an aged lady in her place after a referral is made by the ladies niece. The niece is concerned for the safety of her aunt after a recent diminution in her aunt ‘s mobility and wellness which resulted in a awful autumn. The niece lives rather far off and can non supply regular attention for her aunt. The lady values her independency and does non desire to be put in a residential place which her niece thinks would be for the best ; nevertheless there is a concern able hazard that if some signifier of intercession is non in topographic point the lady is at serious hazard of aching herself farther. The societal worker is faced with a quandary. The lady has a right to autonomy and self-determination nevertheless there is a hazard of possible injury occurrence. The societal worker must put on the line assess the possible results and step the hazard involved. Which on one manus the person faces residential attention affecting losing much personal freedom and liberty ; on the other manus to go forth a individual in their ain place to confront societal isolation and to be potentially at hazard of physical danger may besides be unwelcome. Social workers have to look to the effects of their actions and weight up which action would be least harmful / most good to the user, and which action would profit most efficiently’aˆ? Parrott ( 2010 ) p51 While Kemshall ( 2002 ) p128 argues, ” hazard direction can non vouch to forestall hazard. It can try to restrict the opportunities of hazardous state of affairss tuning into unsafe 1s or cut down the effects of such state of affairss. As she suggests, minimisation instead than decrease is the key ” .

A

In other words to near this state of affairs the societal worker will place the societal work values that is embedded in the their pattern which is ; “ As a societal attention worker, you must esteem the rights of the service users while seeking to guarantee that their behavior does non harm themselves or other people ” . ( GSCC 2002 s4 ) . For farther counsel the societal worker will place with the codification of ethicsA which states ; we may ‘limit clients ‘ rights to self-government when, in the societal workers ‘ professional judgement, clients ‘ actions or possible actions pose a serious, foreseeable, and at hand hazard to themselves or others, ‘ but it besides tells us that we are to ‘promote clients ‘ … self-government ‘ Code of Ethics ( 1.02 ) . Weighing up the results of the single the societal worker will be committed to leting the single pick and authorization. And work with the aged lady to guarantee her self-government remains able whilst besides recommending on the ladies behalf to guarantee she is able to entree services which will let her to populate a safe independent life. Thompson ( 2005, p170 ) cited on chalkboard says it is the societal workers function to enable service users and carers: “ to derive power and control over their ain lives and circumstancesaˆ¦..to aid people to hold a voiceaˆ¦..so that they counter the negative effects of favoritism and marginalisation whilst Hatton ( 2008, p145 ) cited on ( category PowerPoint 2011 ) “ sees societal workers function as active alteration agents to make: “ an sceptered and active group of service users and carers who hold us to account, portion in our determination devising and take part actively in the manner we deliver services ”

A

Social work determinations span a broad scope from safeguarding through to allocation services and reding clients and households on classs of action to better their lives. As we can see some determinations may affect a breach of confidentiality and appraisal of high hazards such as a vulnerable grownup in demand of services to better their quality of life and prevent injury even decease. It is of import therefore for societal workers to be able to warrant their actions.A Social worker hence must pull upon a assortment of professional cognition – such as jurisprudence, policy, research, theory, criterions, rules and pattern wisdom – to inform complex and sensitive opinions and determinations in unsure state of affairss where injury may result. “ Much of what societal workers do concerns determinations about future classs of action, which puts determination devising at the bosom of societal work as a nucleus professional activity ” . Banks ( 2006 ) p9

This assignment will now analyze how the ethical quandary can be resolvedA by discussingA an attack to steer the procedure of ethical determinations in pattern. We have identified that societal workers are expected to critically analyze ethical issues in order to come to a declaration that is consistent with societal work values and ethical rules. However how is the societal worker able to form all the constituents relevant to the determination and results. One illustration of a theoretical account to assist help the societal worker range declaration is Mattison ( 2000, p.206 ) His theoretical account offers a model to analyze ethical quandaries such as: Define and gather information ; Once the societal worker has identified an ethical quandary, they begin the procedure of doing a determination by to the full researching instance inside informations and gathers needed information to understand holistically the client ‘s current fortunes. Supporting this is Horner ( 2005 p97 ) who says that societal workers are to “ prosecute holistically with both the individual and their fortunes whilst at the same clip acknowledging the procedures of power kineticss at the drama in the assisting relationship ”

It is so of import for the societal worker to separate the pattern facets of the instance from the ethical considerations ( so separate pattern from how you have learned to believe about ethical issues ) . Identify value tensions The societal worker must mention to the professional codification of moralss – to assist clear up duties and place the rules that have a bearing on the quandary The societal worker undertakings, weighs, and measures the possible classs of action that seem sensible and the possible effects of these The societal worker after weighing up options must choose an action for deciding a quandary. This involves finding which of the viing duties are we traveling to honor foremost ( this may intend at the disbursal of others ) . The societal worker reaches the declaration phase and this means being able to warrant the determination.

To further this thoughts of influence on determinations It is besides vitally of import for societal workers to take clip to reflect on their pattern and ain values. This is a critical point because although ushers and models can be developed to offer societal workers a logical attack to the determination devising procedure, to some extent, the usage of discretional judgements is avoidable ( Mattison, 2000 ) . The value system and penchants of the determination shaper finally shape the procedure of working through quandary and so it is of import for societal workers to be ethically cognizant of their character, doctrines, attitudes and prejudices. Furthermore, philosophers have argued that elements of deontological and teleological thought operate in and influences determination devising in ethical quandary. A deontological mind is grounded in the belief that actions can be determined right or incorrect, good or bad, irrespective of the effects they produce and so adherence to regulations is cardinal. Once formulated, ethical regulations should keep under all fortunes ( Mattison, 2000 ) . On the other manus a teleological mind is ground in the belief of effects and so weighing up the possible effects of proposed actions is cardinal to this manner of thought ( Mattison, 2000 ) . So a societal worker following a deontological manner of thought will differ in their attack to ethical determination devising compared with a societal worker following a teleological manner of thought.

As portion of the profession societal workers frequently find them self-working collaboratively with other professionals such as physicians, constabularies, nurses, instructors and probation officers to call but a few.A Sing the assortment of different professions unifying to make possible results it is non surprising that partnership working becomes a complex job. “ Chiefly because of the premises that we are all on the job towards a corporate purpose ” . Bates cited in Parrot ( 2010. ) Different values, political orientations, moralss and civilization of working can excessively take to confliction of interests.A A Effective partnerships require sustained relationships, shared dockets built up over clip and a committedness to shared job work outing. “ When different professional groupings come together in coaction so they bring with them their ain ways of working, organizational civilizations and attitudes, their peculiar pattern experience and their ain ethical codifications ” Parrot ( 2010 )

See the followers scenario ; a societal work pupil committedness to anti oppressive pattern is clearly challenged whilst on placement.A The voluntary administration which they are placed with worked in partnership with the crown tribunal. One twenty-four hours as they were waiting for an expected household, to whom they were back uping, they are so approached by an Ussher ( a worker of the tribunal justness system ) . He commented on the household jestingly stating ; A ” Oh no non that household once more they are low life Jeremy Kyle watching moochers, they bring the problem on themselves ” .A This usage of stereotyped linguistic communication discriminated and negatively challenged the whole intent of the administrations purposes which is to value diverseness, whilst besides conflicting with subdivision 5 of the nucleus values of the GSCC “ You must non know apart unlawfully or inexcusably against service users, carers or co-workers ” ( GSCC 2002 5.5 ) Parrot ( 2010 ) suggests “ There is no appropriate manner at which a societal worker can excuse such linguistic communication conditions they choose to face the issue at manus or do a formal ailment ” . Parrott ( 2010 ) further provinces ; “ what is the point in partnership working with fellow professionals merely to ensue in the dilution of the societal workers value base and the demeaning of service users ” . The point of partnership working is non to present appropriate services to service users merely to hold them undermined by some spouses exhibiting prejudiced attitudes.

What if in the scenario discussed above, the prejudiced attitudes and beliefs of the Ussher, was an unconscious influence to the societal workers approach when working with the persons involved in the scenario. This could ensue in an already marginalised group going oppressed further.A Thompson, ( 2005 p34 ) describes subjugation as ; ‘Inhuman or degrading intervention of persons or groups ; in adversity and in justness brought about by the laterality of one group over another ; the negative and humbling exercising of power. Oppression frequently involves ignoring the rights of an single or group and this is a denial of citizenship ‘ .

Thompson farther suggests that subjugation can move at three degrees, these degrees of subjugation offers a model for looking at how inequalities and favoritism manifest themselves. “ Personal degree which relates to an person ‘s ideas, feelings, attitudes and actions. Cultural degree which looks at shared ways of visual perception, thought, and making. Structural degree relates to affairs such as policy. ” Thompson ( 2005 p21 -23 ) Abramson 1996 cited in Mattison ( 2000 ) supports this by stating “ The procedure of the determination devising is forged by the bias and prejudgment brought to the determination doing procedure by the determination shaper ” . Therefore societal workers as agents of alteration effort to relieve inequalities and subjugation within societies and necessitate to be cognizant of the values underlying their work by mentioning to the codification of moralss. By following values and anti-oppressive pattern such as protagonism ; societal workers will be able to do informed determinations in turn toing facets, which relate to the proviso of services to persons who may hold differing demands. Parrott ( 2010 p23 ) describes Anti oppressive pattern ( AOP ) A as “ a general value orientation towards countering subjugation experienced by service users on such evidences as race, gender category age etc ‘ . AOP are besides values of working in partnership and authorization. ”

“ Social workers and their employers have an ethical responsibility to guarantee that the administrations they work for operate in a merely mode ” Parrot ( 2010 ) Social work administrations hence must continue the portraiture that societal work is something worthy and the operation of its administration will take to positive results. The committedness to societal justness ensures public administrations work under statute law to extinguish improper favoritism and to advance equality of chance and good dealingss between individuals of different racial groups.A Expectations of the societal attention employee are prompted by the GCSS codification of conduct.A For illustration in the instance scenario discussed above if the attitudes of the Ussher was another societal worker within an organisation the societal worker would move on counsel on policy process and guarantee the committedness to societal justness was withheld. If the other societal workers attitudes towards service users resulted in unjust intervention and inequality of services than they are non continuing the ethical rules of effectual pattern stated in the IFSW ( 1994 ) A “ Social workers should recognize and esteem the cultural and cultural diverseness of the societies in which they practise, taking history of single, household, group and community differences. ” S4.2.2 Therefore the other societal worker would hold a duty to Challenging unfair patterns “ Social workers have a responsibility to convey to the attending of their employers, policy shapers, politicians and the general public state of affairss where resources are unequal or where distribution of resources, policies and patterns are oppressive, unjust or harmful. “ s4.2.1

If the other societal worker is ethically cognizant and challenges unfairness it is their moral duty to convey to the attending of the administration the other societal workers behaviour. The societal worker would take part in whistle blowing Parrot ( 2010 ) p154 defines whistle blowing asA “ The revelation by an employee, in a authorities bureau or private endeavor, to the populace or to those in authorization, of misdirection, corruptness, illegality or some other error. “ A The administration will so cover straight with the moral character of the societal workers prejudiced attitudes.

In decision societal work can be a ambitious topic and 1 that will actively force the boundaries of all societal workers on a personal degree and professional degree. It is agreed within societal work that moralss, ethical motives and values are all an ineluctable portion of professional pattern and ‘Ethical consciousness is a necessary portion of pattern of any societal work ‘ ( IFSW, 1994 ) .aˆ? However as this assignment has discussed ushers can be provided but inevitableness it is up to the societal workers discretional opinion of the fortunes. Arguably It is hence of import as a societal worker to be cognizant of the codification of moralss, and to speak, discuss, debrief and argument with co-workers and supervisors about quandary they may be fighting with. Finally, the burden is on societal workers to be brooding about themselves and how ‘self ‘ influences pattern and determination devising. To complete we have to be critically cognizant of personal beliefs and prejudices, conveying them to illume so they do non unconsciously act upon our pattern determinations, taking to injustice and unjust distribution and entree to services. Service users must be put at the bosom of societal work pattern and it is our responsibility as societal workers to take any necessary stairss within our administrations to guarantee mistreatment and inequality is brought to surface. We can therefore better public trust within the societal service profession and promote service users to work in partnership to authorise their lives.

Mentions

A

Agency Safe guarding Policy, ( 2010 )

Banks, S. , ( 2006 ) . Ethical motives and Valuess in Social Work.3rd Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,

BASW ( 2001 ) The Code of Ethics for Social Work,

Beckett, C. & A ; Maynard, A. , ( 2005 ) . Valuess and Ethical motives in Social Work: An Introduction, London: Sage

Biestek, F. ( 1971 ) . The Casework Relationship, 7th Ed Unwin: University Books.

Clark, C. ( 2000 ) Social Work Ethical motives: Politicss, Principles and Practice. Basingstoke: MacMillan

Class PowerPoint, Values and Ethics, Blackboard ( 2011 )

Clifford, D & A ; Burke, B, Anti-oppressive Ethical motives, Social Work Education, Vol. 24, No. 6, September ( 2005 ) , pp. 677-692

GSCC ( 2002 ) Codes of Practice for Social Care Workers and Employers, London: GSCC

Horner, N. ( 2005 ) “ What is Social Work? Context and Perspectives ” . Exeter: Learning Matters

International Federation of Social Workers ( IFSW ) available at ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.ifsw.org/p38000324.html, accessed on 12/05/2011

Kemshall, H and Pritchard, J ( 1996 ) Good Practice in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers

Loewenberg, F. and Dolgoff, R. ( 1996 ) Ethical Choices in the Helping Professions. Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice, 5th ed. , Illinois: Peacock Publishers:

Mattison, M. ( 2000 ) Ethical Decision Making: The Person in the Process Social Work Vol.45 ( 3 ) , pp.201-212.

Parrott, L, ( 2010 ) Valuess and moralss in societal work pattern 2nd erectile dysfunction, larning affairs: Exeter

Pinker, R. ( 1990 ) Social Work in an Enterprise Society, London: A Routledge.

Thompson, N, ( 2005 ) . Understanding Social Work: Preparing for Practice. 2nd Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

A

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *