Philosophical Frameworks in Welfare Settings - Case Study Example

PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK IN WELFARE SETTINGS Philosophical frameworks in Welfare Settings This essay evaluates the importance of core philosophical frameworks in guiding the delivery of ethical practice in welfare settings. Two case studies will be reviewed and the precepts of utilitarianism, deontology or Kantian theory as well as the GSCC Codes of practice will be used to analyze each welfare incident. The first case concerns Mr. A, a 54 year old male asylum seeker in need of food and transport to the care centre where he needs to apply for NASS support. However, Mr. A receives money that is insufficient in covering his needs. Mr. A makes complains that he has only received transport money and greatly needs money for food. The Home Office assured him that support money would be sent and this would cover for his basic needs such as food. Upon making further pleas for funds to buy food, he is given the money and a food parcel. Social work seeks to address complex, multiple transactions that exist between people and the environment. The core mission is to assist people in realizing their full potential, enriching their lives and preventing dysfunction (O’Connor, 2006). The profession is focused on bringing about positive change and solving problems in society. Thus social workers are change agents for communities, families and individuals in society. The discipline of social work comprises of an interrelated system of theory, values and practice. Social work practice is based on theories of behavior and human development as well as social systems. This helps in the analysis of complex situations in order to solve problems. The awareness of ethical practice is essential for social workers and they should be committed to ethical delivery of care and service. They should appreciate and uphold human rights. This forms a good basis in addressing issues touching on social justice. Democratic and humanitarian ideals form the core of social work and the values reflect dignity, worth and equality of all persons. Social work practice aims at promoting human potential and meeting essential human needs. In addition, social justice and human rights form the justification and motivation of social work practice. Thus the profession’s objective is to help oppressed and vulnerable people in a bid to improve their plight and to alleviate poverty. Social workers also strive to encourage the social inclusion of marginalized, poor people in social inclusion. Deontological moral theory forms the basis of Kant’s theory and gives a directive on behavior, “the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.” Deontological is derived from deon, a Greek word which refers to duty. “The deontological approach to ethics regards morality as a duty, or a moral rule that ought to be followed”(Staveren, 2007). Deontological/duty based ethics encourage individuals to execute actions out of duty but not by considering the consequences. In other words one should do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do (BBC. 2013). In this case the social worker faced an ethical dilemma as Mr. A was requesting for food. The letter received by the Home Office was an application for transport money. The Home Office processed this application and availed the transport funds to Mr. A. There was no provision for food money. The social worker conformed to deontological moral theory by overlooking bureaucratic professional procedure and availing the funds to Mr. A. Simply put the social work did it out of her duty to alleviate the plight of a hungry elderly man with no food. Most important, the social worker did not consider the consequences of her actions as she contravened professional procedure. The social worker went out his/her way to get money in the fund to assist Mr. A. Clearly, this money was not meant for Mr. A as there are laws and guidelines that regulate the disbursement of welfare funds. The social worker violated these regulations by availing funds to Mr. A. Out of duty to do the right thing, the social worker overlooked the consequences of violating protocol. The social worker also went an extra step when he/she granted Mr. A a food parcel. Kant’s theory upholds important elements such as human dignity, minority protection, respect, human dignity, and individual rights. Human dignity is a pinnacle of social work practice and Mr. A is subjected to hardship and inhumane living conditions. This can be described as the height of poverty as he cannot feed himself and even afford transport money to the welfare centre. As an elderly man, he has minimal chances of earning a living and most likely he is not in a position to fend for himself. Out of desperation, he has to resort to welfare. Mr. A is also deserving of minority protection. He is a senior citizen with no source of income. Therefore, he has a just claim to welfare as this will facilitate a dignified life. Duty based/deontological ethics is also interlinked with the rights approach (Velasquez et al., 2012). A person is right if he/she is executing an action that is morally right. The rights approach upholds respect for human dignity. In decision making, this approach requires individuals to identify legitimate rights in any given situation as well as the obligations and duties of a social worker. The decision made and actions undertaken should exhibit respect and protection of legal, contractual and moral rights of everyone. Essentially, an ethical action should be based on moral obligations. When a social worker is confronted with conflicting rights, he/she needs to make a decision on the interest with greater merit in order to give priority to the most critical right/interest (Reamer, 2002). In the case of Mr. A there are two conflicting rights. First the social worker is faced with the right to adhere to protocol in disbursing welfare. This would require Mr. A to leave empty handed with no food money as he would need to apply and wait for the legal processing of these funds. Secondly, the social worker is obliged to assist a welfare recipient with food and money to buy food. The second interest is greater as the social worker is morally and duty bound to uphold human dignity. The utilitarian approach proposes that an ethical action is one that yields good consequences with minimal or no harm in the outcome. According to Banks (2006), “this approach directs us to act to bring about the greatest good, or happiness or pleasure, or the least amount of pain or harm in the world as a whole. The focus is on the overall happiness of a community and not on that of any particular individual and thus utilitarian ethics are said to have a focus on welfare or justice.” Essentially, utilitarianism comprises of two ingredients: consequentialism and aggregation. Consequentialism proposes that a right must maximize the common good. Aggregation holds that the general good comprises of the total individual goods. During the analysis of a situation, an individual has to consider all the available solutions/course of action. Secondly, he/she should consider the effect of each action by evaluating the harms and benefits of each action. Third, the individual should make a decision that will yield more benefits and cause the least harm. In the situation of Mr. H, the plausible consequences of the ethical dilemma should be considered. The social worker must make the decision to decline or grant Mr. H’s request for food. The consequence of the former action would lead to starvation and even death. This would entail a violation of Mr. H’s human rights and subjecting a welfare recipient to inhumane living conditions. The funds received from the Home Office are insufficient to cover the transport and food cost. Mr. H would be torn between buying food and paying for public transport. Conversely, the decision to grant Mr. H’s request for food money would yield benefits and no harm. The action would be instrumental in reinstating the human dignity of Mr. H. Moreover, the social worker would alleviate his plight and bring about positive change. Mr. H would feel appreciated and this would improve his general outlook on life. The General Social Care Council has set codes of practice to guide social workers. “A code of ethics is a profession’s response to the inevitable dilemmas of service provision: it is a statement of ethical standards of behavior for its members” (O’Connor, 2006). In addition the codes of practice and codes of ethics stipulate the moral stance of social work as well as the obligation to promote and safeguard well being, dignity as well as growth of service users. Most important, they are an ethical framework that serves as a reference point for decision making. The codes of practice can also be applied by the social worker at the Home Office to arrive at an ethical decision for the case of Mr. H. As stipulated in the code of conduct, social care workers must “protect the rights and promote the interests of service users and carers (GSCC, 2010)”. The social worker considered the individual rights and interest of Mr. H when he/she availed food money and a food parcel on short notice. The social worker appreciated the dire situation of Mr. H and the need to deliver prompt assistance. Asking Mr. H to wait for future assistance would have contravened the social worker’s mandate to promote the individual rights and interests of users/welfare recipients. Another relevant requirement for social workers in the code of conduct is, “to uphold public trust and confidence in social care services.” This would be via efficient delivery of welfare services. Mr. H was hungry and in great need but had confidence that he would receive assistance from the Home Office. Denial of this much needed assistance would portray the social worker as inconsiderate. Such a negative image would reflect on the entire Home Office. Similar incidences would have led to dwindling public confidence in social care services. This requirement directs social workers to alleviate the plight of persons seeking assistance. Once welfare recipients are satisfied with the services of the Home Office, public confidence is bolstered. Indeed a summation of similar individual acts (as executed by the social worker) upholds public trust and confidence in social care services. In conclusion, the decision to give Mr. H transport money conformed to Kant’s theory as respect for human rights and moral obligations forms the heart of social work. All actions should be taken with respect to this duty. On the basis of utilitarianism, the action is also appropriate as it fulfills maximal good and eliminates harm. Ethical Incident 2 The welfare case of Mr. C is quite complicated as he has is facing various major issues. First he is an asylum seeker with an expired leave. Thus he cannot qualify for essential benefits such as housing. According to the deontological theory, Mr. C‘s predicament presents an ethical dilemma whose solution should be duty based. In this case, the law is the reference point and duty requires adherence to the law. In accordance with Kant’s theory, “the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty(CSUS, n.d.).” In this respect, it is the duty of all individuals to adhere to the law. The action undertaken is duty based and the consequences of the outcome have no impact on the underlying decision. Therefore, it is unfortunate that Mr. C is homeless but according to the law, asylum seekers are entitled to benefits before the expiry of their leave. Indeed Kant’s theory considers what should be done despite the consequences. This theory requires the individual to do the right thing even when it leads to more problems. On the basis of duty based/deontological theory, the re-possession of Mr. C’s house is the right intervention. However, the judgment is different using the utilitarian approach. The consequences of actions should maximize the good and minimize harm. Thus the move to repossess Mr. C’s house and to deprive him benefits is not morally right using the utilitarian approach. Due to the expiry of his asylum leave, he cannot work and is not in a position to support himself and is totally reliant on welfare. The consequences of house repossession and denial of benefits causes more harm than good. Mr. C is unable to pay his debt and appeals for financial assistance from NASS. While living in the council house, he incurred a water bill of £130.83p. He presented the bill and letter from Severn Trent Water Cooperation at NASS. This presents another ethical dilemma in social work as Mr. C must pay the water bill. The social worker helped Mr. C to formulate a viable plan of debt repayment. Mr. C. is solely reliant on welfare and receives £31 every week for the food voucher. This means that he is not in a position to make a single payment to settle the bill. However, he consents to split the bill by making manageable monthly or weekly payments. In the event, he is unable to pay the bill, the social worker advices him to apply for financial assistance from the Trust Fund. As an asylum seeker, Mr. C is eligible for support from the fund. From a deontological perspective, the social worker made the right decision. Irrespective of his situation and lack of money, he has to pay a debt. The social worker recognizes this lawful obligation and drafts a viable plan of debt repayment. This was the right decision as opposed to pleading for immunity from debt collection. The deontological approach lays emphasis on a character and not its effects. If the underlying principle of an action can be universalized, the action is rendered good. In this respect the law is universal, and all citizens must pay their bills irrespective of their financial status. No exception is made for poor people and this system of law has led to the efficient running of society. If taxes were not paid, government and local authorities would lack the funds to provide essential amenities like water, electricity, proper infrastructure etc. Thus Mr. C cannot be accorded preferential treatment as he used the water and is obliged to pay the bill. No matter the circumstances Mr. C must pay the bill as the law applies equally to all people. There is no leeway for anyone and one cannot justify a situation in order to contravene the law. In fact, granting debt immunity to Mr. C would set a bad precedence as this would apply to future similar needy cases. Deontological theory is based on Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative where he stipulated, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law (Berleur, n.d.).” Value for individuals, respect and human dignity also forms the basis of deontological theory. Social workers must address these issues during social work practice. Even after recognizing Mr. C’s obligation to pay the water bill, the social worker appreciated that he was not in a position to make a one-time payment. His meagre welfare funds were only sufficient to cover for food. After evaluation, the social worker formulated a viable debt payment plan that was manageable. If the money from the trust fund was not availed, Mr. C could have been subjected to starvation as he would have been forced to make payments with his food allowance. Such an act would be inhumane and a violation of human rights as every individual is entitled to adequate nutrition. “Utilitarianism allows individual agents to have moral preferences and to act in the interest of others, when action toward others generates a net utility gain for the individual” (Staveren, 2007). This philosophical framework is relevant in the solution of Mr. C’s problem. The social worker decided on a plan that would maximize the benefits and minimize harm. Social care workers need to reach out to vulnerable persons such as asylum seekers. Such individuals should be assisted to receive financial assistance from funds that cater for such vulnerable individuals. Mr. C. was in debt and in need of financial assistance. Without the speedy intervention by the social worker, Mr. C would have faced dire consequences as the water company would have sued him. Without any source of income or position to access credit, it was highly likely that Mr. C would have been imprisoned for failure to pay his debt. In addition his inability to repay a debt would have reflected negatively on the asylum re-application process. Thus the repayment plan that was drafted by the social worker maximized on the benefits while minimizing harm. The Codes of practice for Social workers (GSCC, 2010), can be used to evaluate the ethical dilemma presented by Mr. C. As stipulated on the GSCC code of conduct, “social workers should promote the independence of service users while protecting them as far as possible from harm.” The social worker must respect the autonomy and wishes of service users/welfare recipients. Mr. C was not coerced to accept the plan. The social worker made a proposition and presented it to Mr. C for consideration. As an autonomous individual, Mr. C made the choice to apply for funds from the trust so that he could pay the water bill. The social worker played the obligation of protecting the service user from harm by drafting a viable payment plan. Mr. C would have suffered greatly if he was forced to make the payment using his food allowance. The welfare money from the trust fund would enable him to make manageable payments. In conclusion, the decision to avail funds to Mr. C for debt payment are supported by both Utilitarian and deontological theories. This was an ingenious solution of the ethical dilemma. Mr. C must pay the debt and this is based on the duty based/ deontological approach. From a utilitarian perspective, the action maximizes on good and eliminates harm. The decision also complies with the GSCC code of conduct that directs social workers to alleviate the plight of service users and respect autonomy. References Banks, S.(2006). Ethics and Values in Social Work. London : Macmillan Basingstoke. BBC.(2013). Duty based ethics. [online]. Assessed on 2 May, 2013. Available http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml Berleur, J.(n.d.). Morality, Ethics, Deontology, Law, and Enforcement: A Tentative Clarification. [online]. Assessed on 2 May, 2013. Available www.ict-21.ch/ICT.SATW.CH/IMG/Text_J.Berleur-New.doc CSUS.(n.d.). Kantian Ethics. Assessed on 2 May, 2013. Available http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm GSCC.(2010). Codes of practice for Social Workers. [online]. Assessed on 2 May, 2013. Available http://www.fassit.co.uk/pdf/CodesofPracticeforSocialCareWorkers.pdf O’Connor, I. (2006). Social Work and Social Care Practice. New York: Pine Forge Press. Reamer, F.G.(2002). Eye on Ethics. [online]. Assessed on 2 May, 2013. Available http://www.socialworktoday.com/news/eoe_101402.shtml Reamer, F.G.(2006). Social Work Values and Ethics. California: Columbia University Press Staveren, I.V.(2007). Beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology: Ethics in Economics. Review of Political Economy. 19(1): 21-35. Velasquez,M., Andre,C. Shanks,T. and Meyer, M.J. (2012). Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making. Assessed on 2 May, 2013. Available http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/thinking.html Read More