What does the Australian association of social work practice standards and code of conduct say?

Words: 2764
Pages: 11
Subject: Uncategorized

Please read the information below and using the case study and inclusive model of ethical decision making and 5 steps write essay that considers all relevant ethical issues in the case and reach a justified decision on a course of action. Please use the references provided and include 5 more. Ethical Decision-Making paper 1. Choose 1 person from the case study below (Tarryn -Social worker (Australia ) and write this essay from the professional position of that person. (use Tarryn-social worker (Australia) 2. Students are required to choose 1 ethical decision-making model (inclusive model of ethical decision making by McAuliffe & Chenoweth 2008) and use this model to consider all relevant ethical issues in the case and reach a justified decision on a course of action. 3. Your job is to identify what information would be potentially needed. Identify how you would go about getting this information. What does the Australian association of social work code of ethics say? What does the Australian association of social work practice standards and code of conduct say? 4. What does the organisations policy and procedures say in this instance? What other information do you need to access legislation or policies that might affect the case. 5. Are there any conflicts between personal values, professional requirements and organizational mandates, and are these conflicts likely to present problems for the decision-maker or others? (critical reflection) 6. Are there other resources that could shed light on this dilemma such as research, literature or the experiences of others? (consultation, critical reflection) 7. Who could be consulted at this stage for the acquisition of new knowledge, or for clarification of positions taken by ethical codes, policies or law? (consultation) 8. Attention should be given to interprofessional relationships in the consideration of the ethical decision-making process, with clear identification of point of contention or agreement. 9. Ability to use clearly identified ethical decision-making model (inclusive model of ethical decision making by McAuliffe & Chenoweth 2008) to systematically explore the presenting situation, highlight relevant steps of the process, and articulating a justified final position that is consistent with professional practice Use the INCLUSIVE MODEL OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING by (McAuliffe & Chenoweth 2008) which includes the 4 principles of: Accountability:-, (the ability to make decisions that can be clearly articulated and justified and take into account the personal, professional, organisational, legal, cultural and social context. (As a foundation platform of the Inclusive Model of Ethical Decision Making, the focus of accountability is on the ability of the worker to clearly articulate and justify decisions made, while taking into account the broader social context in which they operate. Accountability is about being open, transparent and honest, and therefore links closely to another foundation platform, critical reflection, which urges practitioners to open up their decision making to scrutiny by self and others in a way that will lead to better future practice). Critical Reflection: -The ability to make decisions that can be scrutinised by others, clarity practice and lead to a better practice in the future. Cultural Sensitivity: – the ability to use resources wisely and to engage in appropriate discussions with others who may assist accountability, cultural sensitivity, and personal reflection. (The third foundation platform, cultural sensitivity, is a necessary inclusion in the postmodern world where respect for the worldviews of others is paramount. Practice that is not culturally sensitive can leave workers open to claims of discrimination, and can have devastating results if actions are taken that circumvent appropriate cultural responses or ignore important cultural norms). Consultation: -The final foundation platform is consultation, which is the action of using the wisdom and counsel of others wisely and to engage in discussions with others who may assist the practitioner to uphold important values in the interests of integrity and prudence. seeking advice from your supervisor. These four platforms are interlinked, and rely on each other to strengthen the core of decision making. When working through the steps of the inclusive model, these foundation platforms should remain in focus at each stage. Then USE the 5 Step Inclusive model of ethical decision-Making model (McAuliffe & Chenoweth 2008) to set the ethical essay out, including introduction and conclusion Step 1: Identify the problem and define the ethical dilemma by exploring which principles are in conflict. This can usually be expressed as a something versus something statement. Defining competing principles may require assistance from someone with ethical expertise in the particular situation, or there might be a need for legal advice. The questions that should be asked in this early stage of defining the ethical dilemma include: Can I clearly define competing ethical principles in this situation? If so, what are they? If not, do I need to consult with an appropriate other to clarify my thoughts? Are issues of culture involved here? (consultation; cultural sensitivity) If I determine that this is an ethical dilemma, where am I placed within it? Is it my role to make a decision, or should this situation be referred to someone with higher authority? (accountability) Is this situation familiar to me or do I need new knowledge? Can I draw on past experience or on what I have learnt from work in other contexts? (critical reflection) Step 2: Mapping Legitimacy-who has a legitimate place in this situation? Who should be included in this decision, and who should not? An important part of good practice is the ability to conduct a thorough assessment of a situation and determine the nature of relationships of those involved at various levels of interpersonal, family and community systems. Ethical dilemmas can involve many people, and it is not easy to decide who has a legitimate place in the decision-making process. Sometimes, people who should be involved are excluded (., families of patients in health care settings; same sex partners), and at other times inappropriate people are engaged in discussions that should by rights not concern them (., employers, relatives with alternate agendas). Consideration needs to be given to whether the ethical dilemma as defined by the practitioner should be shared with a client. In some cases, the ethical dilemma will have implications for professional practice, but may not necessarily impact on the client who may remain unaware of any problem. The questions that could be asked at this stage include: Who has legitimacy in this situation? Who is included and who is excluded? Are there any cultural factors to take into account (., extended family or kin in the case of indigenous clients)? (cultural sensitivity) Is it appropriate to share this ethical dilemma with others? Is this an ethical dilemma that I am facing alone, or are others also involved? Who should be talking to whom at this stage? (consultation; accountability; critical reflection) Step 3: Gathering information- is an essential part of any process of assessment; however, the difference with ethical decision making is that the information to be gathered is more specific to practice standards, codes of conduct, protocols, legal precedent and organizational policies. Documents and policies/procedures are one side of the equation (the material), while the other side involves an analysis of personal, professional and societal values (the philosophical). With experience, practitioners amass a great deal of information that comes from managing case after case, and the longer one works in an organization, the more familiar one becomes with policy and procedures. Unfortunately, practitioners are not always clear about what codes of ethics dictate, what research has found or what case law exists when confronted with the more unusual situations that often characterize ethical dilemmas. Nor are workers always entirely clear about their own values, and whether these are in line with organizational or professional expectations. The extent of information gathering will depend on familiarity with the situation, the ability to access resources in a timely manner and the availability of people who can provide necessary information. Some questions that can guide information gathering include: What guidance is provided by AASW professional codes of ethics, protocols, policies or procedures, and are there any legal considerations? (accountability) Are there any conflicts between personal values, professional requirements and organizational mandates, and are these conflicts likely to present problems for the decision-maker or others? (critical reflection) Are there other resources that could shed light on this dilemma such as research, literature or the experiences of others? (consultation, critical reflection) Who could be consulted at this stage for the acquisition of new knowledge, or for clarification of positions taken by ethical codes, policies or law? (consultation) Is specific cultural knowledge required, and if so, who should be consulted for this? (cultural sensitivity) Step 4: Development of alternative approaches and action. This includes weighing up the options and alternatives. The gathering of relevant information, and the discarding of the irrelevant, should result in a package of knowledge about the situation that can then be sorted and examined for potentially unhelpful or damaging outcomes, should a particular course of action be taken. One of the key principles underlying ethics is the notion of do no harm (non-maleficience)social workers in the helping professions are well aware of the potential for abuse of power, and the dangerous consequences of acting without due regard for the vulnerable and often disempowered position of others. It is not always possible to foresee future harm, and problems that come from left field are always a risk. Decisions can only be made based on the information available at the time, after proper assessment and evaluation of all facts and positions, and with clear understanding of the rationale on which a decision is ultimately based. It is important to consider the significant contributions of ethical theory, which will assist understanding of whether a decision is based on concern for rules, law, policies, guidelines or universal application (a deontological position) or whether the concern is more for consequences or notions of the greater good (a utilitarian position). Should one be more concerned with relationships or good character (ethic of care, virtue ethics), then decisions might take a different course again. Some questions that can guide decision making at this stage include: What are the available courses of action now that I have gathered knowledge and information and considered the range of value positions? (accountability) On what basis will I make this decision and how will I justify my actions? (accountability) Am I missing other alternatives, and how can I be sure that I have weighed up all the options? Who can I talk to about this and can someone else play devils advocate to help me clarify my position? (consultation) Are any of these options culturally discriminatory or insensitive? (cultural sensitivity) How do I feel about the decision I have come to, and is there anything I need to do differently? Can I live with this decision and can I justify it if called upon? How do I implement and document this decision? (critical reflection; accountability) Step 5: Critical analysis and evaluation, decision identified, knowledge gained, impact on self and practice. Critically analysing how a situation played itself out, a practitioner can move practice from a routinized and rote response to a more dynamic and thoughtful engagement with moral issues that lie at the heart of human services are a broad range of reflective techniques that have been detailed in literature (Osmond & Darlington 2005) and drawing on these either as a self-reflective activity, or by active discussion with another, is one way of ensuring integrity, competence and accountability in practice. Who a practitioner chooses to consult also warrants scrutiny as it is always easier to share a difficult situation with someone who will be unlikely to offer a different or more challenging perspective. Some questions that can assist this process include: What have I learnt from this situation about the way I make decisions and have I changed my behavior from previous decision-making patterns? (critical reflection) Do I feel confident that I acted in a culturally sensitive manner throughout the process or were there any aspects of culture that I neglected to explore? (cultural sensitivity) Did I use consultation and support wisely, and who did I choose to talk with about the ethical dilemma? Were there others that I could, or should, have contacted for information? (consultation) Are there issues that I need to bring attention to in relation to deficits in organizational policies/procedures, ethical codes or other processes that impact negatively on service users? At the end of the day, can I own my decision and confidently discuss my actions and take responsibility for my own part in the decision-making process? (accountability) Case Study: Numbers dont lie Setting: A community-based disability support service which delivers in-home care and support for people with disability. Clients: The agency delivers services to people with a diagnosed disability who meet specific means testing and eligibility criteria. Stakeholders: Tarryn: A human services graduate who works in the agency providing coordination, training and professional development for disability support workers. His job description also includes research and record keeping for the agency. Chris: Service manager, Tarryns line manager. Julie: Head of the Management Committee which auspices the service. Liz: Community Funding Officer from the government authority which provides grant money to the service. Rows of numbers. Columns of numbers. Spreadsheets, workbooks, and notepads full of numbers. Tarryn could see them dancing in his head when he closed his eyes. Four years of social work education, focusing on human behaviour and emotions, honing his relationship skills and avoiding (at all costs) any of the equations, calculations, formulae and graphs which had driven him mad at school. But the numbers had caught up with him. Tarryn loved his job. He enjoyed meeting with the clients, listening to their stories, and coming to understand their specific strengths and personalities. He loved being able to invest something meaningful and tangible back into their lives- whether it was employing someone for a few hours each week to do their shopping or providing a comprehensive round-the-clock support program. He also loved the people he worked with- a mix of paraprofessionals and volunteers, of different ages and persuasions, who were united by their absolute commitment to supporting their clients wholeheartedly. He enjoyed coordinating their activities, training and encouraging them, and, most of all, he enjoyed watching them learn and grow and become confident and capable workers. Most of all, he loved his boss, Chris. Chris was a compassionate, dedicated professional who helped Tarryn to believe in his own abilities through his gentle encouragement. When necessary, Chris also confronted and challenged him in a way which pushed him to be his best. Chris was always willing to listen, and it was clear to Tarryn that Chris poured his life into his work. The fact that Chris had cerebral palsy was almost irrelevant. At first, Tarryn had not known where to look or how to speak when he was with Chris, and he was sure that he had come across as a complete jackass during his job interview. However, he soon learnt that Chris was as sharp as a knife and could cut through other peoples imposed limitations with ease. This was brought home on his very first day in the job, when he and Chris attended a meeting with an inept cleaning contractor who insisted on referring every question to Tarryn. The man spoke so loudly and slowly to Chris that Tarryn cringed. Eventually, with a twinkle in his eye, Chris glared at the contractor across the table and drawled You can talk as slow as you want and as loud as you want, but Im the one who signs your checks. Do your job properly or well find someone who can. Chris had started as a client of the agency at a time in his life when he was working through uni and needed a lot of support. Eventually, he graduated and started work in the service, eventually becoming the manager. He was well regarded and widely respected. Tarryn would do pretty much anything for Chris. He was a good boss and a committed practitioner. Tarryn knew that Chris disability added credibility to his role, but he had come to learn that Chris had the competence and dedication to back it up. Tarryn was pulling together a detailed annual summary of the agencys services and activities for the preceding year. The services triennial funding was due for renegotiation, and this report would be the crucial document which demonstrated their effectiveness and guaranteed a further three years of funding. Things were not looking good. By some measures, the agency had been thriving- with a growing client base who depended on the agency as a central, consistent source of support. Client feedback had been gathered by an independent consultant, who had encountered almost universal praise from the people he had interviewed. On the other hand- during the past few years, the funding models and requirements had changed significantly and Tarryn found himself repeatedly confronted by the fact that many of their activities just didnt fit with the new output-based unit costing accountability-driven service standards he was trying to apply. For example, many of the agencys services involved, in real terms, employing support staff to spend quality time with clients who were unable to get out and about in the community- playing board games, reading to them, in some cases, simply sitting and watching TV with them. Tarryn knew that some of these social relationships were absolutely crucial to people who had very little positive contact with the outside world. However, all services needed to fit into criteria like assisting in developing employment skills and finding work or delivery of direct care services or transport to and from medical or therapeutic appointments. It was also evident that they simply did not have enough clients (or incidents of service) to satisfy the current funding requirements. Tarryn had alerted Chris to this fact and had been told to make it fit. Tarryn had gone through the stats again with Chris to show him that they had a problem, and Chris had been more direct- record the number of clients that were needed, show the service delivery as whatever the hell was required, be creative and descriptive and do it convincingly. Together they had then gone to the monthly meeting of the Management Committee and discussed the current review and renegotiation of their service agreement. Chris had glossed over the problems and assured the board that further funding was certain. The Management Committee had accepted the report and praised both Chris and Tarryn for their hard work. Afterwards, Julie, the head of the Management Committee had met with them privately and reassured Tarryn. Chris has told me that you have been a bit stressed about this process, knowing that sometimes we have to massage the stats a bit. Let me put you at ease- this is the same crap we go through every few years and it really isnt a problem. If it makes you feel any better, remember that the Management Committee is the legal auspice of the agency- at the end of the day, we are the ones who are accountable for the money we get, and I am personally telling you to chill out. Chill out. Tarryn felt decidedly un-chilled out, especially as he now had another layer to his dilemma. Whilst cross-referencing the figures from the service logs, he had tracked an odd discrepancy and come to realise that Chris was also receiving support as a client of the service. Chris was receiving about 15 hours of in-home support each week, which took care of his cleaning, washing, shopping, and even pet grooming and walking. Tarryn knew that Chris worked long hours and really gave of himself. However, he also knew that Chris did not meet the eligibility criteria for direct services- his income was way over the limit, and he did not receive any Centrelink disability assistance. Tarryn looked again at the lists of numbers, and he scrolled through the draft report he had prepared (in line with Chris and Julies expectations). He had an hour until his appointment with Liz, during which he would need to provide the report and look over the methods he had used to collect and collate the stats. Maybe numbers were easier than people References Donna McAuliffe & Lesley Chenoweth (2008) Leave No Stone Unturned: The Inclusive Model of Ethical Decision Making, Ethics and Social Welfare, 2:1, 38-49. Australia Association of Social Work (AASW). 2020 Code of Ethics, Canberra. Google scholar Australia Association of Social Work (AASW). 2013 Practice standards, Canberra. Google Scholar Corey, G., Corey, M. S. and Callanan, P. 2007. Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions, 7th edn, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole/Thomson. McAuliffe , D. 2005 I’m still standing: Impacts and consequences of ethical dilemmas for social workers in direct practice , Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics , vol. 2 , no. 1

Let Us write for you! We offer custom paper writing services Order Now.

REVIEWS


Criminology Order #: 564575

“ This is exactly what I needed . Thank you so much.”

Joanna David.


Communications and Media Order #: 564566
"Great job, completed quicker than expected. Thank you very much!"

Peggy Smith.

Art Order #: 563708
Thanks a million to the great team.

Harrison James.


"Very efficient definitely recommend this site for help getting your assignments to help"

Hannah Seven