Major Issues in Social Welfare - Essay Example

Social Welfare Number Department Question Personal values are qualities that are seen as worthy and rational to an individual. They symbolize the top-most priorities of individuals (Glasby, 2012). When one is a stakeholder of an organization, he or she brings his or her profoundly held values and concepts to the company. In that capacity personal values interact with those of other colleagues within the workplace to create a common organizational culture (Bridge, & Street, 2001). One’s personal values are composed of all that has taken place in their life and encompasses influences from the individual’s upbringing, especially parental influence and their family values, the prevailing religious philosophy, friends and colleagues, education and experiences among others (Great Britain Parliament: House of Commons, 2011). Effective people acknowledge these environmental impacts and develop a precise and important set of principles and priorities. Once personal values are well defined, Bainham (2005) said they will have significant influences on every activity in human life. Human beings are known to demonstrate and tailor values in the practical side of one’s person, organizational culture, decision making processes, their input, and communication within neighbours. As Alsop (2013) suggested, values help individuals to arrive at proper decisions on the most important issues in one’s everyday business and domestic life. In light of the overarching role of personal values, human goals and life activities or experiences are based on the personal values. According to Martin and Rogers (2004) it is important to select the values that an individual prefers the most, the values one believes in and those that influence the character of the person in question. Practicing those values in every activity helps to reinforce personality. Living one’s values is perhaps the most influential tool which can be used to build the kind of person one aspires to be as it helps people to realize the best goals and thoughts (Probert, 2009). Costa-Font and Greer (2012) noted that unlike personal values referring to the morals which an individual recognizes and aligns himself or herself to in respect to parties and situations within a social setting in everyday life, Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF) values entail the morals that an individual must conform to during one’s interactions in a formal work life. British Association of Social Workers (BASW) ethics also come in handy during business interactions at the workplace (BASW, 2014; Bridge, & Street, 2001). Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) provides the guiding principles and morals that shape the behaviour of social workers in practice (BASW, 2014). Whereas these values may be subject to continuous evolution over long periods of time and around particular influential life events, one’s professional ethics such as beneficence should never change according to the situations (Great Britain Parliament: House of Commons, 2011). PCF beliefs are normally an extension of one’s individual values such as morality, kindness and being helpful to others (Bainham, 2005; BASW, 2014). As such, the social worker’s initiative to visit the David family by the PCF value of providing the best services within her scope of practice. In some circumstances, individual and professional values may conflict and spark an ethical dilemma. For example: the social worker’s sending on a professional mission to see to the needs of the family when her personal values suggest that the normal working hours have already passed and the social worker should be resting. However, according to the PCF and HCPC codes of practice, the social worker was expected to obey any assignments at any given time whenever there was need (BASW, 2014). A child in need is defined under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 as one who needs protection because he or she has lower chances of realizing or sustaining or having the prospects to achieve or sustain a satisfactory standard of physical wellbeing or growth without care from the local authority (Gray, 2012). In addition, under Section 31 of the Act, a child who needs protection is one whose wellbeing or development has the potential to be substantially harmed or further harmed, and thus should be put under the protection of local authority pending the court decision. The care is inclusive of disabled children. Development can imply physical, academic, emotional, social or interactive development, whereas health can be bodily or cognitive (Santy, & Smith, 2007). The disabled are defined as being blind, deaf, and dumb or having a mental condition. In addition chronic handicap by illness or congenital condition or any other disability based on the conditions equally qualifies a child as being vulnerable and in need of protection (Glasby, 2012). Based on the provision, Andrew and Annie qualify as children who are need of state protection. As such, the personal values of doctor are likely to be the triggers of reuniting Andrew with his family after being treated for the minor injury sustained in the attack by his father. Similarly, the out-of-hours social worker has had her personal values transcend her decision to visit the family and provide services out of the normal schedule. The HCPC Principles HCPC principles also come up in the case study and manifests clearly in the line of duty of the Andrew’s doctor and that of the social worker ((BASW, 2014; Alsop, 2013). The doctor has carried out effective treatment on the child’s head injury and has recommended a social worker to visit his parent’s home, in order to recommend any possible social care issues that may need immediate attention of the local authorities based on HCPC, Article 1. This is professionally important to the search for a lasting care program for the child in an environment with past and potent risks in the future (Great Britain Parliament: House of Commons, 2011). The enrolment of the parents in a special individualized educational plan during their early stages of development points to the social roots of the child’s injury which should be resolved once and for all to avoid a recurrence. As Santy and Smith (2007) suggested, whereas government protection under the Children Act is for those who by definition are persons below the age of 18, the services may be extended to the immediate members of their social relations for the sake of the welfare of children in question. In this case, the doctor and the social worker are basically working within the confines of section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and Article 1 and 2 of the HCPC, by extending the services to the family of Andrew because the legal provisions provide for the safeguards and for fostering of the child’s welfare (Costa-Font & Greer, 2012). The extension of the services is triggered by the fact that the parents have a chronic problem of disability and by limiting the services to Andrew’s medical assistance his welfares would not be effectively taken care of because such harms are repetitive. Following the interoperation of personal values and HCPC principles of safety as envisaged under Article 1, the local authority may accommodate the two children at a local government facility away from the parents on the grounds that the children’s wellbeing is under the threat of injury (BASW, 2014). According to Martin and Rogers (2004) the accommodation option is provided for under Section 20 of the Act. The common law has provided the much-needed clarification on the fact that whereas the government may provide housing accommodation for cases in need to parental care their parents, it is not obligated to do so. In this case, it is not a must to include David and Clare in the treatment, but may be part of the care program for a possible reunification of the family in future. Question # 2 Numerous ethical issues arise in social work and encompass incompatible professional commitments and duties which are otherwise referred to as ethical dilemmas (Alsop, 2013). In these circumstances, social workers have to make a decision as to which obligations should come first. Common ethical dilemmas encompass tension and disagreements in how social work should be conducted in a way that will be most appropriate to most of the major stakeholders under utilitarian ethics as advocated in BASW (BASW, 2014). For example, the social work in this case study should be geared toward protecting Andrew and Clare’s right to privacy in respect of their history of learning disability and the risks which their negligence poses to the children; and prompt a disclosure of the confidential information to local authorities to help protect the whole family from harm (Glasby, 2012). In addition, the social worker should respect the couple’s rights to decide for themselves and safeguard the interest of the children and that the couple’s own autonomy as long as they pose no risks to themselves under non-maleficence ethics. Specifically, David’s high-risk behaviour of firing air gun armed with pellets in a living room where Andrew keeps on crossing the line of fire poses the greatest ethical dilemma to the social worker (Martin, & Rogers, 2004). In practice the worker must summon various philosophical approaches to decision-making in order to resolve the possibly ethical move to give Andrew preferential treatment due to his current condition which is the result of high risk behaviour of the father. Similarly, the social worker has an obligation to speak the truth and acquire important services for the susceptible Andrew and his sibling by exaggerating or falsifying care reports to the local government agencies concerning the children. On the one hand, the ethical dilemma of respecting the law and breaching it when the situation calls for meeting the needs of the vulnerable clients; and safeguarding the privacy of their parents on the other hand is really challenging (Glasby, 2012). Another primary purpose of BASW ethics is to familiarize social workers with trends of ethical dilemmas which are likely to come up when the social welfare report on the family is implemented. Philosophical ideas and concepts such as justice, truthfulness and honesty, beneficence and utilitarianism enable social workers to resolve ethical issues by focusing on a number of primary factors when arriving at decisions including the impact of ethical theory, PCF and HCPC ethical codes, and the procedure of arriving at ethical decisions (Costa-Font & Greer, 2012; BASW, 2014). Since the recent past, ethicists in social work have created decision-making structures and guidelines to enable practitioners make proper decisions whenever they encounter ethical dilemmas. Owing to the potential disagreements among reasonable, considerate, and ethical social workers in respect of the application of ethical principles and the formula which should regulate ethical decisions in any particular circumstance, philosophical interventions enable social workers to turn the rather imprecise strategies for handling ethical dilemmas into a more practical approach that is customizable to virtually any situation (Santy, & Smith, 2007). By approaching ethical decision-making in a systematic manner and based on important theories and doctrines, ethicists agree the eventual decision will be binding among members of the profession. As Martin and Rogers (2004) said, by adhering to several of the philosophically proven steps, the ideal social worker would improve the value of the ethical choices they make irrespective of the complexity of the dilemma. Typical decision-making structures based on proven theories are based on the significance of professional and individual values, social and cross-cultural issues, ethical theories and HCF and HCPC codes derived therefrom, and relevant laws, regulations, and government policies (BASW, 2014). Values and BASW ethics and the professional codes of practice Values are individual beliefs about what the person in question believes is true or important. Every person has certain values which they rely upon when examining things and situations as they happen in the world. It is arguable that a number of people will stick to their values irrespective of the changing circumstances (Gray, 2012). An interaction of diverse personal values in a social environment prompts progress from individual values to a compromise in the form of shared values which help in quicker and more effective decision-making processes, for example, in social work practice. According to Timms and Thoburn (2006), BASW ethics refers to the common values which are believed to properly regulate the activities of members of a society or an organization in a manner that fulfills the aspirations of most parties involved or affected by the actions of practitioners in question. BASW ethics refers to a set of regulations developed within an organization or institution which transcend personal values (Timms, & Thoburn, 2006). They include; justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and truthfulness and honesty. Interestingly, it is these common ethical goals that when codified to regulate the philosophy, actions and the responses of members of a particular profession that turns out to be the professional code of ethics for that given profession (Alsop, 2013). The merging of the largely personal values of individuals in the society forms ethics which by nature is primarily premised upon socially acceptable virtues, rights, and duties of members of a community (Masson, 1992). Professional codes of practice such as The Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF) merge ethically right personal and shared values of social workers into a regulatory structure which helps in administering professions (Great Britain Parliament: House of Commons, 2011). For example, the duty to refrain from any acts or harm or activities which may threaten the security of clients or their autonomy or their confidentiality when the situation does not call for a trade-off of such actions with the mightier welfare of others in social practice, for instance, may be regarded as a professional code of practice. As such, values, ethics and professional codes of practice are normally built upon consistency, honesty, and concerns for what is right in any given situation. Values are the very basic form of the larger ethical constructs and the largest, formal, written professional codes of practice (Costa-Font & Greer, 2012). Therefore, whereas no ethics which technically values an action can exist on its own, ethics and the subsequent codes of practice as well as other similar regulatory frameworks developed by the UK’s Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) may be in conflict with the very basic values due to the latter’s subjectivity (Great Britain Parliament: House of Commons, 2011). This implies that certain values will propel an individual to oppose certain decisions founded on the ethics or the relevant codes. In this case study, the doctor may have been personally content with the kind of treatment Andrew had received at the facility following his slight head injury. However, because there is a likelihood of repeat or even more serious injuries to the victim or the other members of the family, the doctor’s actions was guided by beneficence ethics in his choice to send a social worker to visit David family. Legally, this was sound because: a) section 17 of the Children Act 1989; b) the ethics that any reasonable person in his position would have; and the PCF and HCPC codes regulating such care. Justice ethics and non-maleficence guided the elimination of any harm in the children’s way as opposed to the parent’s autonomy to remain with them. Question # 3 Social Care Regulations Various pieces of legislation play an overarching role in regulating social work practice in the United Kingdom. The relevant pieces of legislation provide the framework for enforcing various ethical codes for social work practice. First, the Human Rights Act of 1998 seeks to guarantee care beneficiaries of their fundamental rights (Oxford University Press, 2010). Social workers working under these conditions must embrace the finest of ethical considerations in their practice whether or not they provide services in public or private organizations (Choudhry, & Fenwick, 2005). Different social work services such as providing care for individuals with poor mental conditions, supporting the elderly and those with disability in their permanent residences, providing out-patient care in residential or nursing homes as well as providing care for children who have become victims of broken families require a legislative framework to achieve (Fortin, 2009). The Human Rights Act 1998 compliments the ethical practice of social workers by eliminating risks that might compromise the provision of quality services such as discrimination based on gender, race, belief, disability or sexual orientation (Costa-Font & Greer, 2012). However, owing to the lack of discrimination based on age, social workers can tailor codes of practice to reflect giving priority to the younger population when it is extremely necessary to act along that line (Oxford University Press, 2010; Fionda, 2001). As such the social worker would be acting legally and in good faith by seeking accommodation for Andrew and Annie at a local government facility and away from their mentally impaired parents who pose more risks to them. The Human Rights Act 1998 domesticates various reliefs in social work practice as provided for under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Santy, & Smith, 2007). By virtue of the legislation, social workers are under the obligation to formulate and stick to ethical codes of practice which protect clients’ the right to life and guarantee them freedom from demeaning treatment, unreasonable detention, and from violation of their private life (Fortin, 2009). In addition, Hughes and Rose (2010) noted the Act provides for qualified rights which can be taken away if it is reasonable to do so. This implies that social work may interfere with some fundamental human rights in some situations (and protected by other laws), when by allowing those rights will negatively impact on other individuals’ rights (Oxford University Press, 2010). For instance, seeking a residency for the two children at a local authority facility will deny the family the freedom to coexist, but one that will guarantee the children of their overriding safety needs (Costa-Font & Greer, 2012; Herring, 2012). As Gray (2012) said, under the doctrine of qualified rights, the parents may also under Article 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 1983 be denied their freedom of movement in order to allow for better access to mental treatment because with their freedom they continue to compromise the safety of the children and are unlikely to receive sufficient treatment. In addition, the mental condition of the couple may pose more serious risks of self-harm. Detention on the premise of mental condition amounts to a legal interference with the individual’s right to liberty, but is proportionate under the law (Choudhry, & Fenwick, 2005). Article 8 ECHR requires the individual denial of some human rights under the doctrine of proportionality (Gray, 2012; Fortin, 2009). As Aveyard and Sharp (2009), noted actions of a provider to impose codes supporting the installation of surveillance cameras to monitor only extreme cases of mental care patients such as those who are at the highest risk of self-harm may amount to proportionate breach of those individuals’ human rights. Nursing and individualized care resident providers that meet the stringent qualifications imposed under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, section 145 are considered to be government authorities with powers to deny social care beneficiaries some of their basic rights when the situation so demands (Ferguson, 2013). A care resident facility qualifies under the provision if it has residency programs alongside nursing or individualized care for residents whose social care expenditure is the responsibility of the government (Fionda, 2001). The original Children Act 1989 and its subsequent repeal by the Children Act 2004 are all efforts seeking to regulate social care practice in respect to care for individuals who are under 18 years like Annie and Andrew. The latter body of law, under Schedule One, 5(3) provides for the procedural rules to follow in enlisting new social workers, their employment terms and the scope of their work in providing for children welfare needs (Aveyard, & Sharp, 2009). The provision regulates social work ethics by ensuring that only qualified candidates are allowed to do social work in England (Fionda, 2001). The clause empowers the local administrator of children social services to select successful candidates for appointment by the local authority under section 18 of Act (Herring, 2012). As such, Oxford University Press (2010) says the law prevents undeserving individuals from practice for purposes of ensuring the provision of high quality of social services. Funding care The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (NHSCCA) mainly concerns the choice and funding for social care services (Martin, & Rogers, 2004). Section 47 of the Act streamlines funding issues, whether or not the beneficiary needs assistance from the local government. According to Aveyard and Sharp (2009) the provision also enables social work practice to concentrate on the provision of services without unnecessary distractions of vetting applicants who are in need of care. With a clear discretion to evaluate the needs of would be beneficiaries, Ferguson (2013) note the HCPC and similar oversight bodies are better placed to refine the unique needs of local applicants and factor them in the ethical codes of practice for maximum positive gains. Finally, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 helps to define who is a mentally disabled person. Under section 2, an individual lacking mental capacity is one whose ability to make individual decisions has been impaired by cognitive problems (Gray, 2012). Both Clare and Andrew qualify as mentally impaired because they were enrolled in individualized education plans for special cases early on in their development and they cannot adequately take care of their children. As such, they should be enrolled in mental care. The subsequent sections of the Act through 2(6) provides a rare discretion to social workers to stick to the ethical code of acting in good faith towards pursuing their treatment plans based on the balance of probabilities of the mentally ill. References Alsop, A., 2013. Continuing Professional Development in Health and Social Care: Strategies for Lifelong Learning. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Aveyard, A., & Sharp, P., 2009. A Beginners Guide to Evidence Based Practice in Health and Social Care. New York: McGraw-Hill International. Bainham, A., 2005. Children: The Modern Law, London: Family Law. Bridge, G., & Street, C., 2001. When Things Go Wrong: Being an Independent Person under the Children Act 1989 Complaints Procedure. Social Policy & Administration, 35(6), pp.716 British Association of Social Workers. 2014. Social Work Careers: Thinking about a career in social work? Retrieved from https://www.basw.co.uk/social-work-careers/ Choudhry, S., & Fenwick, H., 2005. Taking the Rights of Parents and Children Seriously: Confronting the Welfare Principle under the Human Rights Act. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 25(3), pp.453-492 Costa-Font, J., & Greer, S.L., 2012. Federalism and Decentralization in European Health and Social Care. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ferguson, L., 2013. Not merely rights for children but childrens rights: The theory gap and the assumption of the importance of childrens rights. International Journal of Childrens Rights, 21(2), pp.177-208. Fionda, J., 2001. Legal Concepts of Childhood. Cambridge: Hart Publishing. Fortin, J., 2009. Childrens Rights and the Developing Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Glasby, J., 2012. Understanding Health and Social Care: Understanding Welfare: Social Issues, Policy and Practice. London: Policy Press. Gray, B., 2012. Face to Face with Emotions in Health and Social Care. London: Springer Science & Business Media. Great Britain Parliament: House of Commons, 2011. Health and Social Care Bill. London: The Stationery Office, 2011 Herring, J., 2012. Family Law: Planning, History and Environment. London: Routledge. Hughes, R., & Rose, W., 2010. The challenge of the Children Act 1989: balancing support, care and protection for children. Journal of Childrens Services, 5(3), pp.2-5. London: Psychology Press. Martin, V., & Rogers, A.M., 2004. Leading Interprofessional Teams in Health and Social Care. Masson, J., 1992. Managing Risk Under the Children Act 1989: Diversion in Child Care? Child Abuse Review, 1(2), pp.103-122 Morris, J., 1999. Disabled children, child protection systems and the Children Act 1989. Child Abuse Review, 8(2), pp.91-108. Oxford University Press, 2010. History of Social Work in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Probert, R., 2009. Cretneys Family Law. London: Stephen Michael Cretney. Santy, J., & Smith, L., 2007. Being an E-learner in Health and Social Care: A Students Guide. New York: Routledge. Timms, J.E., & Thoburn, J., 2006. Your Shout! Looked after Childrens Perspectives on the Children Act 1989. Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 28(2), pp.153-170 Read More