Borrower OUULending String MHB,TXU,KSW,IWU,SNC~Pa

Borrower: OUU
Lending String: MHB,TXU,KSW,*IWU,SNC
~
Patron:~~
.0 iiiiiiiiiii;;; Journal Title: Ethical decisions for social work~. -
== practice.rrJ$-< -(]) iiiiiiiiiii;;;iiiiiiiiiii;;;
;>
iiiiiiiiiii;;; Volume: Issue:.-~ - MonthlYear: Pages: 59-71
~ iiiiiiiiiii;;;-rrJ
~ iiiiiiiiiii;;;
Article Author: Dolgoff, Ralph; Loewenberg,CS =
S ~ Frank M; Harrington, Donnaiiiiiiiiiii;;;
0 ~
~ , Article Title: Need Chapter only: 'Guidelines for
VJ Q
ethical decision making'
CS CQ
X ..-
(]) N
~
Z
~ ILL Number: 189272999
"C

/111/1/ 1111/1111111111 11111III/I 111/111111111111111
III/C'CJ:J
..J
Call #: HV43 .L58 2009
Location: Denton - General
Collection
Charge
Maxcost: 15.001FM
Shipping Address:
Schusterman Library
University of Oklahoma -Tulsa
4502 E. 41st Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
United States
Odyssey: 206.107.42.157
E-Mail: ARIEL [email protected]
Need to update by 3 days after: 20180803
COPYRIGHTNOTICE:The copyright law of the
u.s. (Title 17 U.S. Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of
copyrighted material. Under certain conditlons
specified in the law, libraries and archives are
authorized to furnish a photocopy or other
reproduction. One of these specified
conditions is that the photocopy or
reproduction is not to be "used for any
purpose other than private study, scholarship
or research". If a user makes a request for, or

later uses a photocopy or reproduction for
purposes in excess of "fair use", that user may
be liable for copyright infringement. This
institution reserves the right to refuse to
accept a copying order if, in its judgment,
fulfillment of the order would involve
violation of copyright law. By uslng Electronic
•
Document Delivery service you expressly
agree to comply with Copyright Law.
GUIDELINES FOR ETHICAL
DECISION MAKING: THE
DECISION- MAKING
PROCESS AND TOOLS
CHAPTER 4
In the previous chapter, we examined philosophical
components, contemporary
approaches, and values as background for ethical decision
making. In this chapter,
we turn to the practical components of decision making itself.
Sometimes a social
worker can realize instantly that an ethical decision must be
made. More typically,
decision making is a process or series of thoughts and activities
that occur over time
and that result in a person or group acting (or not acting) in a
particular manner. The
process may not be conscious, but it always precedes making

the ethical decision itself.
Decisions will be better, more effective, and more ethical to the
extent that the process
becomes conscious.
Ideally, decisions are approached step by step so that one moves
through a series of
stages until, at the end of the process, one makes the decision.
It is erroneous to assume
that only one person, the decision maker, participates in this
process. There may be
many participants in the decision-making process, but there is
only one responsible
decision maker. Many different persons present information,
react to assessments,
introduce additional options, or make changes in the
environment; these, in turn,
change the nature of the data on which the decision is based or
the nature of the
decision that is made.
Observing decision making is like watching ocean waves
approach the shore.
Choices are always influenced by previous decisions that lead to
new directions.
Ethical decision making is far too complex to permit the
development of a "how-to"
problem-solving model, but a model may help social workers
understand what is
involved in ethical decision making. Like all models in science,
such a model will
simplify reality by focusing on only one decision. A model is a
permissible didactic
device as long as it is understood that in real life every decision
is preceded and
followed by other decisions, many of which have a direct

bearing on the matter under
consideration. In Figure 4.1, we present a general model for
decision making that is
59
60 CHAPTER 4
FIGURE 4·I I A GENERAL DECISION-MAKING MODEL
1. Identify the problem and the persons, institutions, clients,
professionals, support systems, victims, and others that I----
are involved in this problem.
j
2. Determine who should be involved in the decision making.
j
3. Identify the relevant values held by those identified in
step 1, including the client and worker.
j
4. Identify the goals and objectives whose attainment you
believe may resolve (or reduce) the problem.
j
5. Identify alternate intervention strategies and targets, and
assess the effectiveness and efficacy of each alternative
in terms of the identified goals.
j

6. Select and implement the most appropriate strategy.
j
7. Monitor the implementation, paying particular attention to
unanticipated consequences; evaluate the results and e--
identify additional problems, opportunities, and options.
applicable to many different siruarions and is nor limired to
ethical decisions. This
model is based on the assumption that social workers can plan
rationally what is
needed for intervention in human situations and that they want
to minimize the
irrational, the impulsive, and the unplanned consequences of
actions.
GUIDELINES FOR ETHICAL DECISION MAKING: THE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AND TOOLS 61
1. Identify the relevant professional values and ethics, your own
relevant values,
and any societal values relevant to the ethical decision to be
made in relation
to this ethical dilemma.
2. What can you do to minimize conflicts between personal,
societal, and
professional values?
3. Identify alternative ethical options that you may take.
4. Which of the alternative ethical options will minimize
conflicts between your

client's, others', and society's rights and protect to the greatest
extent your
client's and others' rights and welfare, and society's rights and
interests?
5. Which alternative action will be most efficient, effective, and
ethical, as well
as result in your doing the "least harm" possible?
6. Have you considered and weighed both short- and-long term
ethical
consequences?
7. Final check: Is the planned action impartial, generalizable,
and justifiable?
FIGURE 4.2 I ETHICAL ASSESSMENT SCREEN
ETHICAL ASSESSMENT SCREEN
The social worker who is alert to the ethical aspects of practice
will examine and assess
the available options and alternatives somewhat differently than
her colleague who is
not as concerned with those aspects. This becomes clear when
we consider various
assessment criteria. In Figure 4.2, we present an ethical
assessment screen designed to
help social workers furrher clarify and integrate the ethical
aspects of decision making
in social work practice.
PROTECTION OF CLIENTS' RIGHTS AND WELFARE
The definition of rights and privileges changes over time, and
these changes may create
ethical problems. What is thought ro be a right at one time may

not be so defined in
another era-for example, social workers were once expected to
protect confidenti-
ality, no matter what the obstacles. Today, social workers
remain concerned about
confidentiality but may not be able to completely protect it for
various reasons:
changes in laws; court decisions; the introduction of new
technologies; managed care
and administrative record keeping required by funding and
accrediting organizations;
participation and consultation with team members, including
those from other
disciplines; and responsibility to supervisors and courts. In
chapter 5, new privacy
regulations required by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act
(HIPAA, 1996) that became effective in 2003 will be discussed.
Changing definitions of rights may also create ethical problems
for social workers.
Consider the ethical problems faced by social workers in the
adoption field as the right of
adopted persons to information about their biological parents is
becoming recognized in
more and more jurisdictions. At one time, the biological and
adoptive parents were
assured that such information would remain confidential and
would never be shared with
62 CHAPTER 4
the adoptee. Now, when court decisions or legislative
enactments in some states support

the right of adopted persons to this information, social workers
in these jurisdictions have
little choice but to reveal it. Is it ethical for other social
workers to continue to tell
biological and adoptive parents that this information will
always remain confidential
when they have no way of ensuring this promise? This problem
is not limited to courts
and adoptees. No social worker can ever assure complete
confidentiality because the
social worker often cannot control what others (interdisciplinary
team members,
insurance companies, etc.) will do with the information she
appropriately shares.
PROTECTION OF SOCIETY'S INTERESTS
Sometimes it is difficult to balance society's interests with a
client's interests. If a client
tells his social worker that he has committed a property crime,
the social worker must
weigh her obligations to the client against her obligations to
society. Social control is
one of the functions of every social worker, but so is the
maintenance of a helping
relationship. To which function should the practitioner give
priority if she cannot
pursue both at the same time? Does it matter whether the law
violation harms another
person? Can lawbreaking be overlooked when a client makes
progress toward
attaining identified and constructive intervention goals? Keep
these questions in mind
as you assess the ethical dilemmas posed in Exemplar 4.1.
_ I SECURlTY OR PROTECTION?

John Newton was a likable young man-22 years old, not steadily
employed, but always
willing to help. Even before Ray Dunkirk, the community
worker, had arrived on the
scene, John had organized a number of young adults into a club.
This club was well known
in the neighborhood for the many helpful services it provided.
The community's elderly
population was especially appreciative of the security services
that the group gave them.
Thefts and holdups of older people had ceased ever since this
club began to operate in the
community. However, Ray became aware that John had
intimidated local store owners
and obtained regular payoffs from them in return for promising
them "protection." What
was Ray Dunkirk to do? He considered various options,
including the following:
• Overlooking John's protection racket in view of the many
positive things he was
doing that were benefiting the community
• Reporting John's protection racket to the police, because
illegal activities should never
be condoned
• Strengthening his relations with John with the view of helping
to guide him away from
the illegal activity; in the meantime, he would not report the
law violation to the police
What are the ethical aspects in choosing the best option? One
ethical dilemma is
how to balance the best interests of the various persons and
groups involved: older

persons, storekeepers, the community, t.he larger ~ociety, an?
others. Anothe~ ques-
ion concerns the ethics of doing something that might result 10
the return of VIOlence
:gainst the older people of this community. The following
discussion is inten,ded to
help social workers cope with these conflicts and find answers
to these questions.
THE "LEAST HARM" PRINCIPLE
Sometimes social workers are confronted by problems for which
there are no positive
choices. Regardless ofthe option chosen by the client and/orthe
worker, some harm will
cometo one person or another, perhaps even to the client or to
the social worker. What is
the ethical choice in such situations? The "least harm" rule
suggests choosing the option
that will result in the least harm, the least permanent harm, or
the most easily reversible
harm. These are not always simple decisions, and in some cases,
there are complex
considerations. A social worker has to consider "the least harm
to whom?" A given
choice may result in the least harm to one person but major
harm to another person.
Consider the options facing EBen Ashton, the social worker
who has to consider
the options in the Madurai family situation (Exemplar 1.1).

Does the least harm
principle offer guidance in choosing the most ethical
alternative? How?
Some have suggested that the routine application of the least
harm principle may
diminish the possibility of choosing the most effective
intervention technique. There
may be times when it is justified to use an option that has great
risks but enhances the
likelihood of a successful outcome. However, such a choice
should be made only with
the full consent and agreement of the client.
EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS
Many people think that efficiency and effectiveness are
synonyms, but there are
important differences between the two terms, especially when it
comes to ethical
decision making. The efficiency criterion is concerned with the
relative cost (including
budget, staff time, agency, and community resources) of
achieving a stated objective.
Whenever two options will lead to the same result, the one that
requires fewer
resources is the more efficient one. The effectiveness criterion,
on the other hand,
relates to the degree to which the desired outcome is achieved.
When the implementa-
tion of one option results in halving the number of poor people
in a county, while the
second option reduces the poverty population by 80%, the latter
option is the more
effective one-but its cost may be so high that it is considered
inefficient.

Difficult choices arise when the more efficient option is the l ess
effective one or vice
versa. In addition, making decisions only on the basis of
efficiency and effectiveness
criteria may result in unethical decisions. At times, the most
efficient or the most
effective option must be rejected because of its ethical
implications. As early as 1975,
Cuba tracked down Cubans who had lived in Africa and tested
them for diseases.
Cuban officials also committed people to sanitariums when they
tested HIV positive,
where they were forced to remain, despite human rights
complaints by Cubans and
other persons. Later, some HIV-positive men and women were
allowed to leave if their
condom use and hygiene were approved (Aguilera, 2003). In the
United States, these
actions may be seen as highly effective at controlling the
transmission of HIV but
questionable from an ethical point of view. For example,
sending poor people or
people with chronic mental illness to another city or deporting
them to another
country may be the most effective and most efficient way of
eliminating poverty or the
expense of long-term or repeated hospitalizations, but such
decisions must be dis-
missed out of hand by anyone who is concerned with the ethical
implications of these
proposed plans.
64 CHAPTER 4

More often, the ethical assessment of an option is not as clear
as in these
examples, so a social worker may find it difficult to make a
decision. For example,
what are the ethical implications of forcing poor people to
work, a more efficient
option? Work is highly valued in our society, but force means
limiting a person's
freedom, another important value in our society. The ethical
assessment, in this case,
demands that we assess work and independence against the loss
of freedom. In the
past, social work ideology rejected the various "workfare"
programs that forced poor
people to work. With the implementation of Temporary
Assistance fat Needy
Families (TANF), a change in societal and social work ideology
and values is
apparently taking place. Although a professional consensus on
the issue may be
lacking, there appears to be less agreement on whether
"workfare" is ethical than was
true in the past (Dolgoff, 2002).
Another kind of ethical quandary arises out of the continuing
efforts to dein-
stitutionalize patients of mental hospitals. When this policy was
first proposed some
years ago, certain professionals supported and implemented the
program because they
thought it would tight a wrong. In some instances, the option of
releasing mentally ill
patients from hospitals was adopted even though it was known
that most communities
lacked adequate resources for caring for these people. Many

state governments were
unable to help communities with the problem because they
themselves were facing
major budget cuts. How ethical was it to institute a strategy that
might result in some
long-range improvements, but in the short run might harm many
fragile people, as well
as others? Was it ethical to do so without first ensuring the
availability of adequate
community resources? Consider this question by using the
ethical assessment screen
(Figure 4.2). The ethical assessment screen provides a sequence
of questions to be
answered systematically that takes a person through the
important variables to
consider in order to arrive at a thoughtful and careful ethical
decision.
RANK ORDERING ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
In the preceding sections we discussed a number of ethical
criteria that some social
workers have found helpful when assessing decision
alternatives. These criteria have
not been arranged in any order of priority. More specific guides
are needed whenever
two or more of these criteria point toward different
alternat.ives. Even though some
social workers disagree, we believe that the preferred way of
resolving such conflicts
among ethical principles is a lexical ordering ofthese pri nciples-
that is, tank ordering
them from the most important to the least important. Such
ordering is necessary even
though "ordering principles is not an easy task" (Christensen,
1986, p. 82).

A lexical ordering of ethical principles can provide social
workers with a guide,
but such a guide is not meant to be a magic formula that can be
applied blindly. As
Baier (1958) suggested, the principle of priority should be used
when two or more
moral rules (standards) conflict. Based on the earlier work of a
number of authors
including Baier (1958), Kitchner (1984), Joseph (1985), Lewis
(1984), Reamer
(1983), Siporin (1983), and Zygmond and Boorhem (1989), we
have prepared guides
for ethical decision making. Social workers rarely make direct
use of theoretical
knowledge or philosophical principles when making practice
decisions. Instead, they
have integrated knowledge and values into a set of practice
principles, and these are
what social workers use at the critical points in the decision-
making process. We have
Examine the Code of Ethics to
determine if any of the Code rules are
applicable. These rules take
precedence over the worker's
personal value system.
One or more of
the Code rules apply:

The Code does not
address the specific
problem or several
Code rules provide
conflicting guidance:
Follow the Code rules.
FIGURE4.3 I ETHICALRULESSCREEN(ERS)
used the work of the authors mentioned, as well as additional
sources and our own
practice experience, to prepare the following two guides or
screens that we believe will
be helpful in making ethical decisions. We call these guides the
ethical rules screen
(ERS) and the ethical principles screen (EPS) (see Figures 4.3
and 4.4). These guides
are meant to be tools; they should not be applied blindly.
The ERS should always be used first. Only when this screen
does not provide any
satisfactory guidance should the social worker use the EPS. To
be useful, a guide for
rank ordering ethical principles must clearly indicate the order
of priority of such
principles. Once such a priority list has been established, the
operating rule is that the
satisfaction of a higher-order principle takes precedence over
the satisfaction of a
lower-order principle. Even though there is not yet any general
agreement on the rank
order of professional ethical principles, we have developed the
EPSon the basis of our
perception of what might be the consensus among social

workers. All ethical
principles are important. When more than one ethical principle
is relevant in the
analysis of a set of practice options and each of these principles
leads to a different
outcome, the rank order suggested in the EPS should be used to
make a decision. In
other words, an assessment based on Ethical Principle 1 is more
compelling than one
using Ethical Principles 2 or 3. For example, if both
confidentiality (Principle 6) and
fulldisclosure (Principle 7)apply, the ethical principle
ofconfidentiality should receive
priority. Because the EPS is the key ethical assessment tool for
resolving ethical
practice dilemmas, we will comment in detail on each of these
principles.
66 CHAPTER 4
Protection
of Life
Equality
andlnequaJity
Autonomy
and Freedom
Least Harm
Quality of Life
Privacy and Confidentiality

Truthfulness and Full Disclosure
FIGURE 4.4 I ETHICAL PRINCIPLES SCREEN (EPS)
ETHICAL PRINCIPLEI The protection of human life applies to
all persons, both to the life
of a client and to the lives of all others. This principle takes
precedence over every other
obligation. "The right to life is the most basic of all rights, for
if one's right to life is
violated one cannot enjoy any other rights" (Kuhse & Singer,
1985, p. 509).
Most physicians follow this principle of saving and prolonging
human life,
regardless of the resulting quality of life or the economic costs
involved. This life-
sustaining principle received wide publicity through the cases
of Karen Ann QuinJan
and Terri Schiavo, whose physicians refused to withdraw life-
support systems, even
though these patients had been unconscious for many years and
there was no further
hope for any positive change. Today, physicians keep many
Americans "alive"
through the use of high-tech life-sustaining instruments. Social
workers, on the other
hand, tend to place more emphasis on improving the quality of
life for individuals,
groups, and communities. Most of the time, social workers are
not aware of any
conflict between the biophysical principle of sustaining life and
the psychosocial
principle of improving life. At times, however, there is conflict.
One example is the case

of a middle-aged man with marked hypertension. The
medication that brought down
his life-threatening blood pressure also caused sexual impotence
(Roberts, 1989). Is it
ethical for a social worker to support this client's decision to
stop taking the
medication so that he can once again enjoy sexual relations?
Such a decision may
lead to an improvement in the quality of his life (Ethical
Principle 5), but it may also
contribute to shortening his life span (Ethical Principle 1).
ETHICAL PRINCIPLE 2 The principle of equality and
inequality suggests that all persons in
the same circumstances should be treated in the same way-that
is, persons in
equivalent situations have the right to be treated equally. At the
same time, persons
in different situations have the rightto be treated differently if
the inequality is relevant
to the issue in question. Unequal treatment can be justified
when other considerations
such as beneficence (the duty to do good, not harm others)
outweigh the equality
principle or on the grounds that such unequal treatment will
promote greater equality
(Frankena, 1973, p. 52). This principle was formulated by
Kitchner (1984) and is
based on the seminal work of Rawls (1971). Kirchner
specifically applied this principle
to ethics; she taught that a principle can suggest an obligation,

but if there are special
circumstances or conflicting obligations, one should always act
on the basis of the
obligations derived from the higher principle.
This principle applies in situations that involve child abuse or
elder abuse because
the abused child (or elder) and the abuser are not in an equal
position. In these
circumstances, the principles of confidentiality and autonomy
with respect to the
abusing adult are of a lower rank order than the obligation to
protecr the child or older
person, even when it is not a question of life and death. Another
situation in which this
principle applies occurs when several families apply for limited
resources. For
example, after a natural disaster, many families may need
emergency housing, but
higher priority may be given to finding housing for families
with small children or frail
elderly and lower priority may be given to families with only
healthy adults. Should
family composition or prior lifestyles be taken into
consideration? In situations where
one family is demonstrably nearer nutritional or other disaster,
the ethical principle
permits or even requires the unequal allocation of scarce
resources.
ETHICAL PRINCIPLE 3 A social worker should make practice
decisions that foster a
person's self-determination, autonomy, independence, and
freedom. Freedom,
rho ugh highly important, does not override the right to life or
survival of the person

him- or herself or of others. A person does not have the right to
decide to harm
someone else on the grounds that the right to make such a
decision is his or her
autonomous right. When a person is about to make such a
decision, the social worker
is obligated to intervene because Ethical Principle 1 takes
precedence.
The risklbenefitratio may also help determine when the
auronomy principle applies
and when it is ethical to ignore aclient's "decision." Ifthe
condition facing aclient is life
threatening and if the risk of intervention is minimal (while the
potential benefit of the
intervention isgreat), the social worker may consider proceeding
even without aclient's
consent. In this situation, the client's refusal mayor may not be
considered an indication
of his lack of competency.' On the other hand, if the risk is
great and the potential
benefit minimal, the client's refusal is logical and should be
accepted.
ETHICAL PRINCIPLE4 The least harm principle holds that
when faced with dilemmas that
have the potential for causing harm, a social worker should
attempt to avoid or
prevent such harm. When harm is unavoidable, a social worker
should always choose
the option that will cause the least harm, the least permanent
harm, and/or the most
"Competency is a legal construct and may vary by state; social
workers should know the process and
requirements for having someone declared incompetent in the

starefs) in which they practice.
68 CHAI>TER 4
easily reversible harm. If harm has been done, rhe social worker
should attempt where
possible to repair the harm done.
ETHICAL PRINCIPLE 5 A social worker should choose the
option that promotes a better
quality of life for all people, for rhe individual as well as for
the community. Consistent
with the Code of Ethics, "social workers should promote the
general welfare of
society, from local to global levels, and the development of
people, their communities,
and their environments" (NA5W Code, 1999, 6.01).
decisions that strengthen
every person's right to privacy and confidentiality. Keeping
confidential information
inviolate is a direct derivative of this obligation. Professionals
have a duty to protect
the privacy of clients and groups to the greatest extent possible
consistent with laws
and the will and agreement of the clients. Confidentiality,
however, is not sacrosanct
when the social worker can prevent violence or harm of a
serious nature to others.
decisions that permit her to
speak the truth and ro fully disclose all relevant information to

her client and to others.
Social and professional relationships require trust in order to
function well, and trust,
in turn, is based on honest dealing that minimizes surprises so
that mutual expect-
ations are generally fulfilled.
ApPLICATION OF ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING SCREENS
Let ustry to apply these two ethical decision-making screens to
analyze Exemplars 4.2,
4.3, and 4.4.
_ I WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO JIMMY PREGO?
Jimmy Prego is a passive, deeply disturbed early adolescent
who lives in a therapeutic
home where he has sometimes had to be protected from other
residents. He is now ready
to be moved to a less restrictive environment but clearly needs a
therapeutic foster home,
something your supervisor originally suggested. You have
contacted such a home and
begun plans to move Jimmy in about two weeks. When you
inform your supervisor that
you have initiated the move and that everything is proceeding as
usual, he tells you that
space has become available in an even less restricted group
home run by your agency and
that it would be appropriate to move Jimmy to the group home
instead of the therapeutic
foster home.
You tell your supervisor that you will check it out, but he seems
a little uncomfortable.
When you check out the group home, you discover the residents

are older, bigger, and
more aggressive than Jimmy. You do not agree that the group
home is appropriate for
Jimmy, who has had difficulty defending himself where he
currently resides. Also, you
learn that the agency has placed pressure on the supervisors to
boost the group home's
census, an action related to agency financial considerations.
Jimmy's mother is unable to
assist in making the decision because of overwhelming personal
and mental health
problems. Jimmy's problems and his youth make him incapable
of making the decision.
Mrs. Prego insists that she trusts you and trusts that you will do
what is best for Jimmy.
GUIDELINES FOR ETHICAL DECiSION MAKING: THE
Several issues are involved in rhis exemplar. Erhical Principles
4 (least harm) and
5 (quality of life) are particularly relevant here. Will the least
harm be done by
confronting your supervisor and succeeding in obtaining the
placement in the
therapeutic home, even if it means reducing the agency income
when that is what
the agency needs? When you examine the Code of Ethics for
applicable standards,
you find that your "primary responsibility is to promote the
well-being of clients"
(NASW Code, 1999, 1.01). Who is your client and to whom do
you owe loyalty-
Jimmy, his mother, your supervisor, your agency, or yourself-as

you make your
decision about the correct thing to do? Whose best interest takes
priority, that of the
client, agency, or worker? In addition, some social workers
might argue that Ethical
Principle 5 isrelevant because the worker wants to promote a
better quality of life for
Jimmy Prego and the right treatment situation will support that
outcome.
Next, who is competent to make decisions? When clients lack
"the capacity to
provide informed consent, social workers should protect clients'
interests by seeking
permission from an appropriate third party" (NASW Code,
1999, 1.03c). Jimmy is
not capable of making an informed choice. Mrs. Prego trusts
you and wants you to
make the best decision for her son. Is your supervisor an
appropriate third party? He
is placing the agency needs before those of Jimmy. In addition,
"social workers
should not allow an employing organization's policies,
procedures, regulations, or
administrative orders to interfere with their ethical practice of
social work" (NASW
Code, 1999, 3.09d). You, the social worker, may be the only
one in this situation
who is competent to make decisions for the best interest and
protection of Jimmy
and to advocate for the right treatment plan. Jimmy's needs take
priority over the
supervisor's, the agency's, and your own needs. Exemplar 4.3
provides another
example.

_ I STARTING IN PRNATE PRACTICE
Cliff Baxter is an experienced social worker who recently
resigned his agency job in order
to devote all of his time to private practice. Before Cliff left the
agency, Dennis Norton, a
colleague in the agency, told him that he would be willing to
refer clients to him for a
"finder's fee." As in many private practice beginnings, Cliff is
having a difficult time
making ends meet. His income last month was not even
sufficient to pay the rent for the
office. Should he give Dennis a call?
We will use the ERS and examine the NASW Code of Ethics to
determine if
there are any rules relevant to this situation. The NASW Code
(2.06c) states:
"Social workers are prohibited from giving or receiving
payment for a referral
when no professional service is provided by the referring social
worker." This rule
provides such clear and unambiguous guidance that no further
screening seems
necessary. Cliff should not call Dennis to take advantage of his
offer. Are there
ethical issues if Cliff calls Dennis and lets him know he would
be happy to accept
referrals, but he cannot pay a finder's fee? Should Cliff report
Dennis's unethical
practice?
70 CHAPTER 4
In Exemplar 4.4, we will apply the EPS.

• I THE WRONG MAN SITS IN PRISON
Raul Lovaas has been enrolled in a drug rehabilitation program
to break his cocaine
addiction. The program's treatment routine includes
pharmacological treatment, group
therapy, and individual therapy. You are his social worker. You
have succeeded in
establishing a good relationship with Raul in the daily treatment
sessions. One morning
Raul tells you that, some years ago, he accidentally injured a
bank guard during a holdup.
He was never caught by the police, but another man was
convicted for this crime and now
sits in prison on a lengthy sentence. For several days you have
been trying to convince Raul
that he should talk to the police in order to free an innocent man
from prison. Raul not
only refused to listen to your suggestion but said that he expects
you to keep in complete
confidence what he has told you. What should you do?
These are some of the thoughts that you have:
1. Raul has neither a legal nor a moral right to have another
man serve a lengthy
sentence for a crime that Raul committed.
2. The "wrong" that you may cause by breaking confidentiality
is hardly of the same
importance as the wrong inflicted on an innocent person who is
now imprisoned.
3. The effectiveness of the entire program may be compromised
if it becomes known
that social workers do not always keep confidential the

information they receive from
clients.
4. On the other hand, your whistle-blowing can cause the
release of the wrongly
convicted person.
We will focus our analysis on the latter two considerations
because the first
point, though obvious, does not relate directly to what you, the
social worker, should
do, but rather to what the client is ethically required to do. At
least two ethical
principles are involved in the second consideration: Ethical
Principle 3, the principle
of autonomy and freedom, specifically the freedom of an
innocent man who is now
imprisoned; and Ethical Principle 6, the principle of
confidentiality, specifically
respecting the confidence of the information that your client,
Raul, gave you. Some
may also base their decision on Ethical Principle 2, the
principle of equality and
inequality, because an innocent man in prison is obviously not
in an equal situation
and requires additional resources in order to regain access to
equal opportunities.
Because Ethical Principle 6 (confidentiality) is of a lower order
than Ethical
Principles 2 and 3, the second consideration leads to the
decision that you are
ethically justified in breaking confidence and reporting to the
police what you have
learned from Raul.
From a practice point of view, the third consideration may be

especially
important because in most situations we would hesitate to do
anything that might
impede the effectiveness of an intervention. It might be argued
that a program that
can improve the quality of life (Ethical Principle 5) of many
addicts should receive
preference over rhe quality of life of one individual, even if that
person is falsely
imprisoned. It is likely, however, that such reasoning involves a
number of fallacies,
including the following:
• We have no information on the effectiveness of this
rehabilitation program.
How effective is it in improving the quality of life of
all/most/some
participants?
• We do not know what impact, if any, breaking confidentiality
will have on
the effectiveness of the program. It may well be that other
participants will
be happy that the worker was instrumental in freeing an
innocent person
from prison.
• Statistical probabilities are never a permissible substitute for
ethical
screen mg.

In other words, the quality of life principle (Ethical Principle 5)
is not relevant in
this situation, but even if it were, it would be of a lower order
than Ethical Principles 2
and 3. Consideration 3 is therefore not relevant and should be
ignored in making an
ethical decision. We would conclude that you are obligated to
inform the police if you
are unable to convince Raul to do so himself.
THE IMPORTANCE OF IDENTIFYING ONE'S OWN
HIERARCHY OF VALUES
Although the NASW Code of Ethics (1999) recognizes "the
possibility of conflicts
among the Code's values, principles, and standards," it does not
specify which values,
principles, and standards are most important and ought to
outweigh others in
instances when they conflict. Nevertheless, social workers are
frequently faced with
conflicting standards and loyalties and a hierarchy may help
when choosing among
principles. Earlier we introduced our lexical arrangement of
ethical principles based
on our own work and that of others. Ultimately, each social
worker when faced with
conflicts in ethical standards or loyalties must utilize such a
priority ladder. The reason
we emphasized the need for each social worker to carefully
clarify her own values is
that each social worker, when faced with dilemmas, must
depend on her own
hierarchy of principles.

Originally, Loewen berg and Dolgoff (1988) based the hierarchy
on their percep-
tion of what the common consensus might be, and the
hierarchical list of principles
was changed in the following edition (Loewenberg & Dolgoff,
1992). Beyerstein
(1993) suggested that because a professional code of ethics is
created through a
democratic process, members of the profession can only agree
on the obvious and they
"fudge" difficult or contentious principles through compromise,
leaving the choice of
a hierarchy of principles to the individual decision maker.
Over time, the makeup of the profession itself has become more
diverse as a
result of immigration and other societal and professional
factors, including
generational and other differences, which may result in more
disagreement about
the relative importance of ethical principles. We have found
that there is little
agreement on the rank ordering of the ethical principles,
suggesting that percep-
tions may change over time.
SWK – 5403 – Ethics Work-Up
Name:
What are your personal values that are relevant to this case?
(Name and describe)

What professional values (Social Work Values) are relevant to
this case? (Name and describe)
Which ethical standards (from the NASW Code of Ethics)
apply? (Name and describe relevance)
Which path did you choose on the ERS? (Did you use the EPS?)
Describe.
If you used the EPS, describe your thought process and logic.
What Principle was the top?
What was your final decision?
1

Borrower OUULending String MHB,TXU,KSW,IWU,SNC~Pa

More Related Content

Similar to Borrower OUULending String MHB,TXU,KSW,IWU,SNC~Pa (20)

More from VannaSchrader3 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Borrower OUULending String MHB,TXU,KSW,IWU,SNC~Pa