In reading the Jones case, it is apparent that there are many different ethical dilemmas present throughout the entire scenario, and not only do many of these dilemmas violate the social workers Code of Ethics, they also violate Laws and standards of practice (SOPs). While analyzing the ethical dilemmas, I kept in mind the core values of social work and thought of multiple different strategies in which I could apply these values to positively impact the Jones family and practice ethical behavior. To begin, there were multiple situations described in the Jones case that are labeled as unethical by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics, Kentucky Administrative Regulation (KAR) written by the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, and SOPs put in place the Department for Community Based Services. First, it reads that Ms. Jones and Susan have maintained contact over social media and by phone even during times that the Jones case was closed. Though this may seem friendly and beneficial, it can actually harm the client. Through this process, Susan is creating a dual relationship between her and Ms. Jones. This contact and behavior between Susan and her client can be perceived as them becoming friends, not just client and professional. The above dilemma is violating the NASW Code of Ethics section 1.06(c) (2015), …show more content…
KAR 23:080 section 11 (Kentucky Legislative Research Commission [KLRC] n.d.), and the SOP that explains “a worker should not enter into activity which may be a conflict of interest” (Department for Community Based Service [DCBS], 2015). The sections of the Code of Ethics, KAR, and SOP listed above apply precisely to this situation because, while Susan is creating a dual relationship with her client, that in turn is creating a conflict of interest which is explicitly addressed in those sections. A conflict of interest can harm the client since there are no clear boundaries to the relationship, and that can confuse Ms. Jones. Second, in the case, it reads that Susan always protested against any physical abuse accusations towards Ms. Jones, as she discerned through their relationship that she would never harm her children. Once more, Susan is trying to help her client and maintain a good relationship, while also trying to help Ms. Jones keep her family together for the past several years. However, this can be detrimental to the client, the clients children, and also, to the worker. The described dilemma is, again, a conflict of interest. It also violates the NASW Code of Ethics section 1.06(c) (2015), KAR 23:080 section 11 (KLRC, n.d.), and SOP in regards to entering activities which may be a conflict of interest (DCBS, 2015). By intervening during any allegation of physical abuse, Susan is putting the Jones children in harm’s way, and not allowing Ms. Jones to get the help that she may need. However, this situation is also a conflict of interest for Susan and her role as child protective service agent, as she is putting her relationship with Ms. Jones first instead of the children and their safety. This situation shows an impairment in Susan’s judgement. Moving on to the next ethical dilemma, Susan had the local daycare which her children attend accept Ms. Jones children as a personal favor, as a result, they bypassed the long waiting list. Aiding a family in need find local child care is always beneficial to the family, however, the dilemma arises when Susan had the daycare do her a personal favor. Again, Susan is putting herself in an unethical situation by creating another conflict of interest. This violates section 1.06(c) in the NASW Code of Ethics (2015), section 11 of KAR 23:080 (KLRC, n.d.), and the fact that workers shouldn’t enter into conflicts of interest in the SOPs (DCBS, 2015). In this situation, Susan is creating a conflict of interest between her and Ms. Jones, but also between their children as well. They have now put their children in the same class, in which they may become friends and want to continue to see each other after the case has been closed or moved to another worker. Again, this is violating sections of the NASW Code of Ethics, KAR 23:080, and SOPs. Without delay, there are still more ethical dilemmas in the Jones case. The next dilemma is the fact that Susan explained the Jones children situation to the daycare worker. She thought this would help the daycare supervisor better understand the children’s occasional aggressive behavior. However, this is another example of an unethical situation. Though Susan thought she was being helpful, this act can actually be very detrimental. First, it does not state anywhere in the case whether Susan had Ms. Jones permission to share this information with the daycare worker. Also, if Ms. Jones had not wanted the daycare know about the entire situation and did not give her permission, Susan has breached confidentiality. Breaching confidentiality is a violation of section 1.07 (c) of the NASW Code of Ethics (2015), KAR 23:080 section 9 (KLRC, n.d.), and the SOP that states workers “shall not disclose information that may infringe upon another’s right to privacy” (DCBS, 2015). Lastly, the fact that Susan used her connection with the court to get herself subpoenaed and testified against the Jones children going with their fathers using information Ms. Jones had relayed to her, is another ethical dilemma. By doing this, Susan is creating a conflict of interest. Again, this is described as unethical for a professional social worker by the Code of Ethics, KARs, and SOPS. In the above situation, Susan is violating section 1.06 (c) in the NASW Code of Ethics for creating a conflict of interest (2015). She is also violating KAR 23:080 section 11(KLRC, n.d.), and the SOP that explains that workers should not enter into conflicts of interest (DCBS, 2015). Since Susan has had prior contact with Ms. Jones, as both a professional and a friend, the information that she is providing in court may not accurately portray the fathers, and is a conflict of interest for her colleagues and the court. Throughout the entire case, there are many examples of Susan getting too close with her client, crossing ethical boundaries, and having an impaired judgement. While reading the case, I thought about the six core values of social work and how I could apply them to positively impact this family. The three values that stood out to me were service, dignity and worth of a person, and integrity (NASW, 2015). There are multiple different situations in this case in which I could apply these three values to positively impact the Jones family. To begin, as a professional social worker, I would use my value of social justice to help Ms. Jones get the help that she needs to battle her drug addiction. With her being a single mother and battling such issues, it’s very possible that she has trouble maintaining employment and getting to the correct counseling services to help her combat her addiction. In possessing the value of social justice, I would do everything in my professional power to help Ms. Jones with obtaining access to these resources regardless of her situation. Ms. Jones, as an individual needing assistance, has a right to these resources and it would be my role as a professional to help her obtain these. In my experiences working with the Jones family, I would also use the value of the overall dignity and worth of a person.
Of course I would treat Ms. Jones, her children, and her mother with the utmost respect. However, I would also treat the children’s fathers with respect and look at them as individuals, being mindful of their differences and originality. Though I have respect for my client and would listen to her wishes of the children not to be placed with their fathers, I would also look at each father unconnectedly of what Ms. Jones had inputted and make an informed decision as to what is best for the
children. Moving on, the third social work core value that I would apply to this case would be integrity. The Jones family had been in contact with child protective services off and on over the seven years Susan was employed. The children deserve permanency, and possessing the social work core value of integrity, I would work responsibly and honestly to accomplish this while trying to keep the family together. For example, again, I would work with the children’s fathers, regardless of what Ms. Jones had shared with me and make a knowledgeable judgment. Though Ms. Jones had shared her objections with me, if the fathers are proven to be responsible and my colleagues came to an agreeable decision, it would be detrimental to my professional integrity for me to go against them obtaining custody of their children. Social work professionals are to practice responsibly and honestly, and using the value of integrity, the Jones family could be positively impacted. Though I could impact the Jones family by possessing the social work values discussed above, I thought about three different strategies in which I could use to practice ethical behavior in the field. First, though it may sound tough, I will set clear boundaries between my clients and I, so that they know while I truly do care about them and their well-being, we are still on a professional-client basis and we cannot put ourselves into situations where those boundaries may be blurred. Secondly, I will make sure that I speak with my client upfront regarding confidentiality and the extents regarding this. Though Susan explained the Jones children situation to the daycare worker in the case, this is not something I would do unless specifically instructed to do so by my client in writing. Finally, I will always make sure to ask my supervisor any questions or concerns that I may have regarding ethical behavior after consulting the Code of Ethics, Laws, and SOPs. If I have any uncertainties concerning behavior, I will consult with my superior in an attempt to gain an understanding of how to approach the situation. Overall, there are many dilemmas in the Jones case regarding ethical behavior. Many of these dilemmas are a violation of the social workers Code of Ethics, Kentucky Administrative Regulations, and social workers Standards of Practice. While reading this case, I kept in mind three of the six main social work values and thought of different strategies I could use to practice ethical behavior in the social work field, those three values being social justice, dignity and worth of a person, and integrity.
The Krasniqi family was discriminated against because of their Albanian heritage. If I were a social worker who shared an office with the social worker on the Krasniqi case, I would remind him/her of this ethical principle. We, as social workers, are supposed to speak out for those who do not have a voice. We are supposed to advocate for an individual’s right to practice their own religious beliefs and
The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) Code of Ethics (2010) proposes three core values of Social Work, respect for persons, social justice and professional integrity (pp.12). These core values establish “ethical responsibilities” for the social worker (AASW, 2010, pp.12), specifically, the value of respect for persons, which sustains the intrinsic worth of all human beings as well as the right to wellbeing and self determination consistent with others in society (AASW, 2010,p.12). This Code of Ethics stipulates the duty of care a social worker must provide, a...
National Association of Social Workers [NASW]. (1998). The New NASW Code of Ethics Can Be Your Ally: Part I. Retrieved from: http://www.naswma.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=96
The NASW code of ethics serves as a guideline for social workers and its student for decision making in regards to any ethical situation and a violation of such will then be proceeding into a peer review. The Declaration of Human Rights illustrates that all human beings are to be treated with fairness and justice in order to end oppression and discrimination. Many countries throughout the world use the document in conjunction to others as a reference of basic human
The ethical consideration that needs to be taken into account according to the NASW are:
National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington DC: Author.
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics promotes advocacy among social workers, charging professionals to encourage societal wellbeing and be involved in “social and political action” (Code of Ethics, 2015). A very pertinent mode to advocate for the populations served by social workers is through the latter political action. Political Action is further expressed in the Code of Ethics encouraging social work professionals to: be conscious of the effect policy has on practice and advocate for changes in policy and legislation (Code of Ethics, 2015). In order for social workers to fulfill their responsibility to society through political action it is important to know the political system, its mechanisms, the officials
Her scientific casework methods are still used in assessing clients in today’s practice. The Social Work profession also built off her values of individuality, dignity, and importance of human relationships in the core values of the profession, these can be seen in the National Association of Social Workers’ Code of Ethics. While Social Workers still follow most of Richmond’s values today, other values have been re-evaluated as time has progressed. Instead of Richmond’s suggestions of gathering personal information without the client’s knowledge (Pumphrey, 1961), the Social Work profession now values confidentiality and privacy when dealing with clients.
Ethics consists of factors such as culture, religion, and these continuously affect a person’s beliefs and ethics. As individuals continue to develop and adapt to different values and ethics. This is through past experiences and the expectations as our life pattern changes. Core values in social work practice are the code of ethics, informing our understanding of the difference and diversity. The social work profession is evaluated by a whole set of guidelines, measures put in place by regulatory bodies, allowing the movement to put in place new governmental laws and guides within this field.
As it related to the ethical dilemma of creating community employment outcomes for individuals when there has been an expressed desire not to follow this path, standard (5.01) integrity of the profession is pertinent to this conflict dilemma as “social workers should uphold and advance the values, ethics, knowledge, and mission of the profession” (NASW, 2008).
Reamer, Frederic G. "Ethical standards in social work: The NASW code of ethics. Encyclopedia of social work 19 (1997): 113-131
The social work profession and its Code of Ethics dictate that social workers must act in the best interest of the client, even when those actions challenge the practitioner’s personal, cultural and religious values. In practice; however, ethical decision-making is more complex than in theory. As helping professionals, social workers are constantly faced with ethical decision-making or ethical dilemmas. As noted by Banks (2005), an ethical dilemma occurs “when a worker is faced with a choice between two equally unwelcome alternatives that may involve a conflict of moral principles, and it is not clear what choice will be the right one” (as cited in McAuliffe & Chenoweth, 2008, p. 43). In addition, ethical decision-making is a process that
The Species of the Social work values and ethics. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Robison, W., & Reeser, L. C. (2002). Ethical decision making for social workers. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
All social workers are beholden to the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics. Professional ethics are the main core of social work. The profession has an obligation to articulate its basic values, ethical principles, and ethical standards. The code is composed of thematic sections that outline a social worker’s responsibility to clients, colleagues, employers, and the profession. Some responsibilities that a social worker has to a client are that the clients are their primary responsibility, fostering maximum self-determination in clients, respecting the privacy of clients, keeping information that has been shared during the course of their duties confidential and charging fees for services that are fair and considerate
Social work follows specific guidelines in respect to dealing with clients. These guidelines are called the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (Workers, 2015). The Code of Ethics is derived from societal values and morals that were then regulated into professional rules. “Professional ethics are closely related to, but not identical to, general societal ethics” (Dolgoff, 2012). The following societal values have been transformed into professional ethics in the social work profession: cultural diversity, equality, freedom, integrity, knowledge building, privacy and social justice. These societal values are associated with certain guidelines in the NASW Code of Ethics.