SWTP 620 Social Work Theory & Ethics Rebecca Davis S00112007 Assignment 1: According to Gray and Webb

(20010:6) Ethical perspectives in social work are invariably overlapping and in tension with each other. Critically analyse this statement in relation to a current area of social work practice. Reflecting on the current literature regarding ethical perspectives in social work, it is evidently clear that such a profession is intertwined with complex ethical dilemmas and competing interests. In fact, when the historical ethical perspectives which inform current social work practice differ from and contradict each other, it seems only natural that any attempt at a code of ethics and standards based on these would do the same. As will be discussed, being a profession also largely established on contentious values such as social justice and human rights, it seems justifiable to say that any such a code of ethics would ultimately be limited in prescribing finite answers to ethical dilemmas. Analysing aspects of the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) Code of Ethics 2010 (AASW, 2010), it will not only be revealed that the ethical perspectives therein not only overlap, but are also at times in tension with one another. Relating to involuntary clients in particular, the ethical responsibilities for a social worker toward their client (as outlined in the AASW Code of Ethics 2010) appear in direct conflict with the ethical responsibilities they have to society and their legal requirements. Although a breakdown of these ethical codes will further highlight that such social work ethical perspectives are at times incoherent and contradictory, it will also be made clear that standards of practice, as in the case of the AASW Codes of Ethics (AASW, 2010), can still be utilised as a guiding tool in ethical decision making. Using some of the strategies outlined in the AASW Codes of Ethics (AASW, 2010) and Dolgoff, Loewenberg and Harringtons Ethical Assessment Screen (Dolgoff, Loewenberg, & Harrington, 2009) it will be proved that ethical guidance in the area of involuntary treatment of clients is both important and vital to social work practice. Nevertheless, the most pertinent response to such an ethical dilemma will ultimately stem from self-reflection and critical scrutiny (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.15). In this process, according to Gray and Webb, the social worker must always remain stubbornly persistent (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.15). The underpinning of the Western ethical perspectives which inform current social work practice can not only reveal that a societal sense of morality changes over time but can be traced back for centuries. The most common ethical approaches referred to in social work values and ethics literature can be divided into two categories, naturalistic and non-naturalist. Naturalist ethics arose from Aristotles earliest attempts to base the ethical conditions needed for human beings to flourish in fundamental truths about human nature (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.11). This premise similarly coincides with Christian theology, whereby

ethical principles evolve from probing scriptural depths (Kelly, 2006, p.87) for their meaning and application for changing historical and social situations. Such naturalist perspectives emphasise that ethical standings should be utilitarian and maximise the good for all (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.12), simultaneously considering the consequences of all ones ethical actions and decisions (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.12). The morality of an action as defined in naturalist ethics is determined by whether or not its consequences are ultimately favourable (Beckett and Maynard, 2005, p.51). On the contrary, non-naturalist ethics are transcendental and objective, outlined by the seventeenth century German philosopher Immanuel Kant as existing independently of human nature (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.9). Based roughly on the justification of ethical principles using human reason alone, Kant put forward a deontological theory of ethics which assumed there are moral absolutes that can be discovered through a logical process of action and thought (Devettere, 2010, p.310). Reflecting just on these historical perspectives, it is obvious that very different and competing ideas about the moral determinant of human choice not only inform current social work practice but set the scene for the ethical perspectives they must operate by. As an essentially value-based profession, Gray and Webb go as far to claim that the complexity of ethical perspectives a social worker must embrace creates a kind of foreground of conflict. A role in society which resembles one of constant moral endeavour (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.25) In such a way, Beckett and Maynard consider it imperative that the social worker be well grounded upon values such as social justice, human rights and anti-oppressive practice (Beckett & Maynard, 2005, p.6). The AASW Code of Ethics 2010, according to Trotter, is therefore an attempt to affirm such values; lending a sense of cohesiveness to the components of ethical complexity for social workers to use (Trotter, 2006, p.111). Dually though, such a code of ethics tends to idealize morality according to gray and Webb, in a way which ultimately presents conflicts and contradictions within itself (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.15). The AASW Code of Ethics 2010 for instance, privileges the non-naturalistic ethic of selfdetermination as part of its core social work value of respecting human dignity and worth. Outlined as a chief component of the social workers ethical responsibilities toward their client, self determination encourages the client to take control their own destinies (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.10). Yet when a client is made involuntary, the AASW Code of Ethics 2010 also states that, self-determination must be limited (AASW, 2010, p.26). Gray and Webb have gone as far to say that practitioners dealing with involuntary clients often throw away the industrys code of ethics because they have difficulty translating its ambiguous ethical perspectives into the concrete decisions and actions that are required (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.25). The ethical duties outlined in the AASW Code of Ethics 2010 entail not only assisting clients to identity and clarify their goals, but to ensure that clients participate in decisions concerning their treatments (AASW, 2010, p.26). These ethical duties not only reflect the core value of social work being respect for human dignity and worth, but are also essential in the achievement of other ethical responsibilities for the social worker; in the prioritising clients interests and promoting self determination. Involuntary or mandated

clients create an ethical dilemma however, where clients may be deprived of their civil rights, of their ability to determine their own outcomes and have their autonomy curtailed for the ...good of society (Beckett & Maynard, 2005, p.144). Clients described as involuntary have not even necessarily chosen to receive the service they are forced to engage with (O,connor, Wilson & Setterlund, 2003, p.155), even though actively involving the client throughout all decision-making processes enhances the likelihood of attaining ethical outcomes (Cottone & Tarvydas, 2007, p.194). In relation to involuntary clients, advocating for client autonomy and self determination through the elicitation of informed consent further places the social worker in an ethical dilemma unlike any other (Bloch & Singh, 2010, p.455). Emphasised with deliberate importance in the AASW Code of Ethics 2010, the social worker is ethically obligated to support the client to make informed decisions on their own behalf (AASW, 2010, p. 24) ensuring, that clients understand the principle of informed consent (AASW, 2010, p. 27). Both the major ethical systems that have influenced Western social work practice however, also acknowledge that the nature of informed consent is both complex and contestable. The principle of autonomy according to Bonds (2000) analysis of Kants non-naturalist ethics can and is ultimately limited by individual capacity (Bond, 2000, p.94). The notions of utilitarianism, which not only underpin the AASW Code of Ethics 2010 avocation of informed consent, also strongly argue for the importance of respecting anothers autonomy (Bond, 2000, p.94). Stipulating that the person whose autonomy is to be respected must be capable of taking responsibility for his or her own actions (Bond, 2000, p.94). To further complicate matters, informed consent also involves educating a patient who is mentally competent (Bucky, Callan & Stricker, 2005, p.102), and according to the AASW Code of Ethics 2010, cannot be gained when the client has limited capacity to comprehend the situation (AASW, 2010, p.27). If the clients decision-making capacity appears to be limited or impaired therefore, a social worker must again conflict with their ethical responsibility of eliciting the clients right to make informed consent, disregard their promotion of self determination and ultimately step in to safeguard the rights and interests of the client on their behalf. Furthermore, as is often the case with involuntary clients, if a clients actions or potential actions pose a serious risk to themselves or others, a social workers ethical responsibility toward their clients interests (AASW, 2010, p.16) is further contraindicated by issues of protection and/or legal provisions (AASW, 2010, p.27). Even the ethical system founded by Kant which prioritized autonomy over all ethical issues recognised that there was an ethical dilemma when one persons autonomy overrides anothers (Bond, 2000, p.94). Trotter describes the role of the social worker in this instance as at the high conflict end of the continuum (Trotter, 2006, p.64) where they are essentially required to occupy competing ethical positions. One which focuses on representing the interests of protection for both society and client, and the other which has to bargain for the clients rights in the process of involuntary treatment (Trotter, p.64). The paramount ethical principle of respect for human dignity and worth, with all of its related contingencies, again seems to occupy a space of contestation in regards to involuntary clients, placing the social worker in a unique position of balancing reasonable individual rights through advocacy on behalf of clients and

organisational and societal objectives (Swain & Rice, 2009, p.406). According to the AASW Code of Ethics 2010, another ethical core value for the social worker is to uphold a commitment to social justice, to advocate for conditions and policies that reflect its ethical position (AASW, 2010, p.33). Based on what has been discussed in regards to involuntary clients however, it could be argued that justice for the client and protection of their rights are ultimately relinquished when standing up against the legalities of greater society. Presenting more conflict in this issue, the AASW Code of Ethics 2010 also makes clear that social workers are ethically obligated to challenge, and/or report any procedures, practices or services which are inequitable...or disempowering for their clients (AASW, 2010, p.32). Rooney claim here that where codes of ethics such as this advocate for social workers to ethically support practices and social conditions that uphold human rights (AASW, 2010, p.19), any action supported on behalf of a social worker where their clients civil and legal rights may be diminished is hardly ethically, professionally or even legally justifiable (Rooney, 1993, p.56). Moreover, adhering to principles of privacy and confidentiality for the client is also outlined as ethically essential to a social workers practice in the AASW Code of Ethics 2010. Trotter asserts however, that in the case of involuntary clients confidentiality is often forfeited, and is in the very least misleading (Trotter, 2006, p.71). Not only can the information they share be used in court proceedings and legal documents, it can also be reviewed by other colleagues and shared with other agencies. As in the case where a client threatens self harm or harm to others, the respect and loyalty owed to the client through confidentiality and promotion of clients interests is ultimately suspended; overlapped by the social workers ethical responsibility to safe practice (Trotter, 2006, p.72). When upholding confidences may contribute to harming others the social worker is ethically obligated to violate the confidence of the client (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.53). Cited in the AASW Code of Ethics 2010, Clifford and Burke 2009 claim respect for private and personal information is essential, unless there are overriding ethical reasons for not doing (Clifford & Burke 2009, p. 68). Thus, the tension between confidentiality and such ethical reasoning essentially acts in a way to violate trust (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.53) for the client. To further complicate matters, the AASW Code of Ethics 2010 advises social workers to seek collaboration with other professionals and service providers in the case of involuntary clients and confidentiality, and yet, they are also advised to maintain a sense of their privacy (AASW 2010, p.24). It is in the sheer range and scope of ethical perspectives that must be considered in relation to involuntary clients that we get a glimpse of the various tensions and contradictions that are experienced by social workers in their daily work (Gray & Webb, p.52). It is vital to discuss therefore, that the social work Codes of Ethics 2010 as outlined by the AASW does attempt to offer resolutions and guidance for ethical dilemmas and competing demands. Not only does the AASW Code of Ethics 2010 stipulate that social workers should ideally be open with clients regarding the conflict of interests in mandated treatment but they must also attempt to gain the clients knowledge and consent whenever possible (AASW, 2010, p.26).

The AASW Codes of Ethics 2010 further advises that the clients interests must remain a priority in cases of involuntary treatment, while the social worker gives consideration for the respective interests of others (AASW, 2010, p.15). Involving clients in identifying and negotiating the best possible outcomes for example is emphasises as a vital ethical component of this process (AASW, 2010, p.15). Social workers are also obligated to respect the right of individuals to make informed decisions even in the instance of involuntary admission through the exploration of service provision and resource alternatives (AASW, 2010, p.24). Any action of this kind, where a social worker interacts with involuntary clients, should also be taken only after careful evaluation of the situation when less restrictive alternatives have failed (AASW, 2010, p.26). In such a way, social workers can attempt to further resolve the ethical conflict of mandated treatment by promoting social policies of deinstitutionalisation (Corey et al., 2011, p.194) and establishing a relationship between themselves and their competing responsibilities which promotes equitable access to social, economic and political resources via employing tools of both self-determination and societal wellbeing. According to Dolgoff, Loewenberg and Harringtons Ethical Assessment Screen, the ethical conflicts faced when dealing with involuntary clients can only be mitigated by the over arching principle of protection and preservation of human life (Dolgoff et al., 2009, p.67). Having said this, a persons right to selfdetermination, independence and freedom is to not only be respected but upheld as much as is reasonable (Dolgoff et al., 2009, p.67). In a situation where harm seems unavoidable, whatever the choice, the decision should be for the action which brings the least harm (Dolgoff et al., 2009, p.63). In order for the treatment to be effective, social workers should encourage involuntary clients to participate in all the decisions regarding the goals, alternatives and services available to them and wherever possible or warranted, clients should also be notified regarding decisions made about them. It has been made no doubt obvious through this discussion that ethical decision-making is neither clear cut nor definitive. One cannot consult any book or manual which will yield concrete answers to every ethical dilemma. In the case of involuntary treatments, social workers, in particular, face the unrealistic and contradictory expectations that their responsibilities to client, workplace and society will both protect individual human rightsand protect the community (Swain & Rice, 2009, p.405). Whatever we do according to Gray and Webb, we seem to be in the wrong (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.53). It seems therefore, that the most basic premise for the application of codes of ethics is the integration of complex ethical perspectives into a rational (naturalistic) weigh and measure of the consequence of our actions (nonnaturalistic) to maximise good and ultimately reduce harm (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.24). In this way, it is imperative that practitioners understand the realities of their workplace, with the policy and organisational contexts of their practice, and reflect on the often complex and contradictory demands of ethical obligations, being fundamentally mindful that the power bestowed by mental health legislation is in a constant state of contestation. According to Trotter, the more effective workers are able to strike a balance between their social obligations and welfare functions, whilst maintaining the sense that human life is extremely valuable

even if the individual rejects that value (Trotter, 2005, p.68). In the most vital of processes the social worker needs to exist in a perpetual living dialogue with each ethical perspective they face, forcing them through the constant scrutiny and challenge of reflective thought (Gray & Webb, 2010, p.6).

References Australian Association of Social Workers (2010). Code of Ethics. Canberra, ACT. Retrieved from http://www.aasw.asn.au/publications/ethics-and-standards \ Beckett, C., and Maynard, A. 2005. Values & ethics in social work: an introduction. London: Sage Publications Bond, T. 2000. Standards and Ethics for Counselling in Action. London: Sage Publications Bucky, S.F., Callan, J.E., and Stricker, G. (eds). 2005. Ethical and Legal Issues for Mental Health Professionals: A Comprehensive Handbook of Principles and Standards. Binghampton: The Hamworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press. Corey, G., Schneider, M., & Callanan, P. (2011). Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions (8th ed). Belmont: Cengage Learning Cottone, R., and Tarvydas, V.M. (2007). Counselling Ethics and Decision Making. USA: Pearson Education Devettere, R.J. 2010. Practical decision making in health care ethics: cases and concepts. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press Dolgoff, R., Loewenberg, M., & Harrington, M. (2009). Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice (8th ed). Belmont: Thomson Higher Education

Gray, M. And Webb, S.A. (eds). 2010. Ethics and Value Perspectives in Social Work. Hamphsire: Palgrave Macmillan

Kelly, D.F. (2006) Medical care: a Catholic perspective. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press
OConnor, I., Wilson, J., and Setterlund, D. 2003. Social Work and Welfare Practice (4th ed). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia Rooney, R.H. (ed). 1992. Strategies for Work with Involuntary Clients (2nd ed). USA: Columbia University Press Swain, P., & Rice, S. (Eds.). (2009). In the shadow of the law: The legal context of social work practice (3rd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Federation Press. Trotter, C. 2006. Working with Involuntary Clients: A guide to Practice. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin