Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma, Resolution and Action - Case Study Example

Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma, Resolution/Action, and Reflection Student’s Name: Course: Tutor’s Name: Date: 1. Rationale for the Resolution/Action to the Ethical Dilemma The mother to three-year old Jennie had categorically stated that her child should not take an afternoon nap like the other children in her class. Judy (the mother) said that the one-hour afternoon nap that her daughter takes in school disrupts her night sleep schedules thus making it hard for her to sleep early at night, and consequently, struggles waking up in the morning. As an educator, this writer understood Judy’s concerns, but was also aware that Jennie was always sleepy in the afternoon, and skipping the nap would mean that she would not participate in classroom activities optimally. I also understood the importance of the afternoon nap to the child’s development. Additionally, all other children in Jennie’s class took the nap. My dilemma was related to just what was the right thing to do. I wondered if I should follow Judy’s instructions, or uphold what I consider appropriate for Jennie’s wellbeing, and if so, I wondered if her sleep at night was not just as important as her afternoon nap. To resolve the ethical dilemma, I involved other educators, and together, we decided that as it was a school policy for three-year olds to take an afternoon nap; and since it had been proven that naps are “essential for good days and good nights” (Freiner, 2007), Jennie would continue taking her afternoon naps just like other children. Additionally, my colleagues and I realised that even with Judy’s approval, preventing Jennie from engaging in what her classmates were taking part in would be tantamount to discrimination, which would be contrary to the code of ethics. To ensure that our decision was beneficial to Jennie both in school and at home, we further resolved to involve her mother in the issue, since the child’s sleep at night would depend on what her environment around sleep time was. As such, we suggested that Judy should adjust her activities around the house to allow Jennie fall asleep at the same time everyday for purposes of creating consistency in her sleeping habits. In our opinion, Judy justified depriving her child of the afternoon nap as a way of taming her at night, something that fits into the “child as a threat/monster” view articulated by Woodrow and Brennan (2001, p. 99). The rationale for the solution was founded on professional ethics, which help childhood educators realise that above all other stakeholders, their foremost responsibility is to ensure that children’s needs are well catered for (Feeney, 2010). The resolution was attained after considering other competing issues including morality (i.e. Judy’s view about right and wrong). In line with morality, Judy held the belief that June’s afternoon nap was not as necessary as her sleep at night. However, I was not convinced that preventing the child from taking a nap would be the right thing to do, and nor was I convinced that such an action would be fair or just to the child. Freiner (2007) for example notes that “children who nap have longer attention spans and are less irritable that those who are not napping” (para. 2). Freiner (2007) recommends that it is helpful to eliminate naps after 5 years of age, since by that age the elimination would be useful in helping children sleep better at night. The rationale of the resolution was also informed by my understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, whose core principles include: “non-discrimination; devotion to the best interest of the child; the right to life; survival and development; and respect to the views of the child” (UNICEF 2012, para. 4). Of especial relevance to the ethical dilemma highlighted above was non-discrimination, devotion to Jennie’s best interests, and respect for her physical and mental needs, and/or opinions on issues concerning her as indicated by Sheridan and Samuelson (2001). Values are defined as the “beliefs that people hold to be intrinsically worthwhile” and which act to guide their behaviour (Feeney, 2010, p. 73). My colleagues and I share a common value in that we support children’s healthy development. In the ethical dilemma above, it was observed that preventing Jennie from taking a nap would not only hinder her from actively engaging in classroom activities thereafter, but would create an impression that she was different from the others hence the possibility of creating a social-exclusion mentality in her. Overall, it appeared that such impressions on her would hinder her healthy development. Professional ethics is defined as the responsibilities that are collectively and systematically carried out by members of a profession (Feeney, 2010). The rationale for the above resolution also considered the core values and commitments of the profession, and the code of ethics, which are all part of professional ethics. As in most ethical issues involving children, the above dilemma involved not just a child, but her parent too. As such, I had to use the provisions in the code of ethics to do what is right and beneficial to the child, but also what was professionally ethical. The involvement of Judy as a parent was also a well-thought out action especially because the whole idea of stopping afternoon naps for Jennie was her idea. To ensure that she respected the educator’s decision to continue subjecting her daughter to afternoon naps, I had to do what Woofruff (2003) calls “collaboration between children’s and family services” (p. 133). This was done based on the understanding that the home environment and the care and support provided therein were just as critical as the school environment. 2. The process of the ERC, working as a group through the process Mackay (2004 cited by Early Childhood Australia, 2010) arguably captures the value of the ERC process by stating that “wise moral decisions will always acknowledge our interdependency; our moral choices are ours alone, but they bind us all to those who will be affected by them” (p. 242). In other words, Mackay was referring to the fact that when one faces an ethical dilemma, he or she does not have to decide in isolation. In the ERC, it was evident that people have different views about a situation, and this made sense especially when viewed alongside Kennedy’s (2009) statement that ethical dilemmas should be resolved in consideration of the values and beliefs of people involved. By considering such values and beliefs, Kennedy (2009) observed that it would be easier to demonstrate respect for the represented parties, uncover shared values, help people understand that while their views may be different, they may be equally valid, and support the findings of possible solutions to an issue. Similarly, the opinions expressed in the ERC process made this writer understand that there can be several solutions to the ethical dilemmas that one faces as a child educator. The ERC process also brought to the fore the nature and the challenges of childcare work. True to the observations made by the Kennedy (2009), child care work involves “ethical issues rather than technical matters to be ‘fixed’ quickly” (p. 11). The ERC process revived the debate about the significance and importance of quality service provision to children, but it is also revealed that childcare professionals’ contribution to the society was undervalued. Notably however, this was not a new realisation, because as Kennedy (2009) observed, childcare professionals continue to be undervalued, in addition to facing resource constraints. Consequently, the professionals face challenges towards their quest to critically reflect, either collectively or individually on the policies and practices in childcare service provision. Despite the challenges they face, the ERC processes reiterated the importance of all professionals acting in a manner that enhances the wellbeing and protection of the child as indicated in the code of ethics. During my teaching practice therefore, I chose not to concentrate on the challenges of the work (and the time and resource constraints were real), but instead I chose to focus on how well I could improve the learning experiences of children. Working through the ethical dilemma above, I noticed that almost everyone in the ERC processes agreed that refusing one child to participate in a group activity, based on a parent’s request, may have contributed to their social exclusion, and may have emotional and psychological negative consequences on the child (especially since it appeared that a nap rejuvenated Jennie for the afternoon activities). As suggested by Kennedy (2009), the childcare centre and the professionals therein should value a parent’s right to request exceptions for a child; however, such requests should not go against the child’s sense of social inclusion, belonging, and/or his/her abilities to foster friendships. In my teaching practice, such knowledge helped me greatly especially in cases where I was torn between fulfilling a parent’s wishes or doing what is right for the child. The ERC process also provided me with some skills and knowledge for handling stress at work. Faced with an ethical issue for example, I knew that my opinion alone was not sufficient and therefore I often consulted with my colleagues or supervisor. Sometimes I could refer to reading materials that I found relevant, and other times I just took time and reflected in issues raised. The ERC process also made me realise that the complex family systems, value systems and diverse belief systems make the child educator’s job even more ethically sensitive, and sure enough, I encountered such in my teaching practice. True to Wyatt (2004), the childcare setting is a “hub of relationships”, and need to be equipped to handle such relationships ethically (p. 108). My exposure to ethical decision-making especially in line with the code of ethics, and other policy guidelines such as the UNCROC however aided me to maintain professional and ethical relationships with the children and their families. The UNCROC guiding principles –“non discrimination; the best interest if the child...; the right survival and development; [and] respect for the views of the child” as indicated by the Australian Human Rights Commission (2010, p. 3) were discussed at length in the ERC process, and consequently, I always considered them during my teaching practice. Further, I learnt that a true ethical dilemma may not have an easy resolution specifically because ethical principles conflict with each other. The importance of identifying relationships (parent-child-educator), identifying ethical principles involved, identifying the contradictions between the principles, identifying possible solutions, and selecting an action although learnt in class were reinforced further in the ERC process. Additionally, I realised the practicality of the knowledge acquired in the ERC process whenever I faced an ethical issue in my teaching practice. In conclusion, it is worth noting that the ethical dilemma, the ERC processes, and even this essay writing exercise all provide this writer with opportunities to acquire more knowledge in issues related to ethical decision making. Evidently, and if Kennedy’s (2009) observations that child care careers are constantly faced with ethical dilemmas that do not have quick fixes is anything to go by, any knowledge that this writer is exposed to will perhaps be relevant in resolving future dilemmas. References Australian Human Rights Commission. (2010). The discussion paper for formation of a national children’s commission. Retrieved December 16, 2010, from http://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children/2010_commissioner_children.pdf Early Childhood Australia (2010). Code of Ethics. Deakin West, ACT. Fenney, S. (2010). Ethics today in early care and education: review, reflection, and the future. Young Children, 10: 72-77. Freiner, D. (2007). Is napping necessary? St. Louis Children’s Hospital. Retrieved September 27, 2012, from http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Napping_Necessary/ Kennedy, A. (2009). Ethics: a part of everyday practice in child care. The Magazine of the National Childcare Accreditation Council, 29: 9-11. Sheridan, S., & Samulesson, I. (2001). Children’s conception of participation and influence in preschool: a perspective on pedagogical quality. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2:169-194. UNICEF. (2012). The Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved September 27, 2012, from http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/237_202.htm Woodrow, C., & Brennan, M. (2001). Interrupting dominant images: Critical and ethical issues. In J. Jipson, & R. Johnson (Eds.), Resistance and representation: Rethinking childhood education, pp. 96-106. New York: Peter Lang. Woofruff, J. (2003). When love is not enough: Children's and family services working together to support children and families. Keynote Address to the Mobile Children's Services Association Conference. Dubbo, NSW. Wyatt, S. (2004, July). Childcare as a hub of relationships. Melbourne: 6th Biennial ECIA Conference. 108-116. Read More

The rationale for the solution was founded on professional ethics, which help childhood educators realise that above all other stakeholders, their foremost responsibility is to ensure that children’s needs are well catered for (Feeney, 2010). The resolution was attained after considering other competing issues including morality (i.e. Judy’s view about right and wrong). In line with morality, Judy held the belief that June’s afternoon nap was not as necessary as her sleep at night. However, I was not convinced that preventing the child from taking a nap would be the right thing to do, and nor was I convinced that such an action would be fair or just to the child.

Freiner (2007) for example notes that “children who nap have longer attention spans and are less irritable that those who are not napping” (para. 2). Freiner (2007) recommends that it is helpful to eliminate naps after 5 years of age, since by that age the elimination would be useful in helping children sleep better at night. The rationale of the resolution was also informed by my understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, whose core principles include: “non-discrimination; devotion to the best interest of the child; the right to life; survival and development; and respect to the views of the child” (UNICEF 2012, para. 4). Of especial relevance to the ethical dilemma highlighted above was non-discrimination, devotion to Jennie’s best interests, and respect for her physical and mental needs, and/or opinions on issues concerning her as indicated by Sheridan and Samuelson (2001).

Values are defined as the “beliefs that people hold to be intrinsically worthwhile” and which act to guide their behaviour (Feeney, 2010, p. 73). My colleagues and I share a common value in that we support children’s healthy development. In the ethical dilemma above, it was observed that preventing Jennie from taking a nap would not only hinder her from actively engaging in classroom activities thereafter, but would create an impression that she was different from the others hence the possibility of creating a social-exclusion mentality in her.

Overall, it appeared that such impressions on her would hinder her healthy development. Professional ethics is defined as the responsibilities that are collectively and systematically carried out by members of a profession (Feeney, 2010). The rationale for the above resolution also considered the core values and commitments of the profession, and the code of ethics, which are all part of professional ethics. As in most ethical issues involving children, the above dilemma involved not just a child, but her parent too.

As such, I had to use the provisions in the code of ethics to do what is right and beneficial to the child, but also what was professionally ethical. The involvement of Judy as a parent was also a well-thought out action especially because the whole idea of stopping afternoon naps for Jennie was her idea. To ensure that she respected the educator’s decision to continue subjecting her daughter to afternoon naps, I had to do what Woofruff (2003) calls “collaboration between children’s and family services” (p. 133). This was done based on the understanding that the home environment and the care and support provided therein were just as critical as the school environment. 2. The process of the ERC, working as a group through the process Mackay (2004 cited by Early Childhood Australia, 2010) arguably captures the value of the ERC process by stating that “wise moral decisions will always acknowledge our interdependency; our moral choices are ours alone, but they bind us all to those who will be affected by them” (p. 242). In other words, Mackay was referring to the fact that when one faces an ethical dilemma, he or she does not have to decide in isolation.

In the ERC, it was evident that people have different views about a situation, and this made sense especially when viewed alongside Kennedy’s (2009) statement that ethical dilemmas should be resolved in consideration of the values and beliefs of people involved.

Read More