Methods of Development Of Social Work - Case Study Example

A prominent case that occurred recently involves Roberta Jackson who is eager to have a baby and asked her social worker not to tell her husband or family members that she has a genetic marker which identifies her as a carrier of Huntingdon's disease. This is a disease for which there is no cure, but which will not show up until 20 to 30 years from now. This is an inherited condition which potentially affects all family members and inflicts premature senility on those affected. She is afraid that her husband will not be willing to have a child if he knows about her genetic condition. This scenario involving Roberta Jackson not wanting her husband to know that she is a carrier for Huntington’s Disease is a tricky one for a social worker because it can be looked at from two different perspectives. First of all, social workers must agree to retain an individual’s confidentiality, which would mean that the social worker in this case would not be permitted to tell Roberta’s husband. At the same time, however, the social worker has the responsibility to disclose information in order to prevent imminent, foreseeable harm to a client or to others. This brings up the question of whether or not the chance that a child could end up with Huntington’s Disease is considered imminent danger, as the effects will not be visible for 20 or 30 years, even though “Each person whose parent has Huntington's disease is born with a 50-50 chance of inheriting the faulty gene. Anyone who inherits the faulty gene will, at some stage, develop the disease“ (The Huntington Disease Association). This scenario would be a difficult one for a social worker because his or her personal values could get in the way of handling the situation in an ethical manner. In this particular case, the social worker did tell Roberta’s husband about the condition, but this possibly could have been handled differently. The most important part of a social worker and client relationship is the bond of confidentiality, as the client must be able to trust the worker. As a rule, the client is to have the right to determine if and when any of this information is given to a third party. Therefore, it should be obvious that a social worker would not be permitted to share this information, since Roberta said that she did not want it to be shared. Social workers can only go beyond this consent if they are required to by law and the social worker, in this case, would not be required to share this information by law. Morally and ethically, she probably should share the information, but it is not up to the social worker to make ethical decisions for the client, only for his or her own. What this means is that even if the social workers truly believed that this situation was wrong and wanted to share this information with Roberta’s husband, he or she would not be able to under the Code of Ethics because “The general expectation that social workers will keep information confidential does not apply when disclosure is necessary to prevent serious, foreseeable and imminent harm to a client or others. In all instances, social workers disclose the least amount of confidential information necessary to achieve the desired purpose” (Canadian Association of Social Workers, 2005, P. 10). This information also raises another question regarding this scenario, as it should be asked whether or not the social worker should attempt to help Roberta to change her mind about having a baby without speaking to her husband about this first, as social workers “need to be careful since there are clear limitations on the extent of confidentiality“ (Johns, 2005, P. 133). What social workers are supposed to do is help the client in his or her best interests. Which is difficult because “social work often deals with deeply personal and painful issues - mental illness, disability, the personal care of old people, the safety of children - the practice of social work has the potential to challenge deep-seated value positions on many subjects” (Beckett, 2005, P.1). This means that impartiality must be achieved, which can be difficult to do when dealing with so many different ethical issues. They must also avoid pushing their own views on a subject into the lives of the client. In this situation, attempting to convince the client to tell her husband could be seen as the social worker pushing his or her views upon this other person, which should not be done. This situation could bring up a potential conflict within an individual, as he or she would have to deal with the ethics of bringing a child into the world that will have a high chance of getting this disease. The social worker, in this situation, would have to decide what the profession as a whole would say about this situation and then act accordingly. The profession would probably state that one’s personal beliefs should not be brought into this situation and, therefore, the social worker has no right to attempt to convince Roberta on what to do or to attempt to change her mind. There is, however, another way of looking at this situation. Since it is the social worker’s duty to act in the best interest of the client, then he or she would be able to effectively discuss strategies with Roberta in order to minimize the problems that might occur. If the social worker was to stop short of advising Roberta on what she should do in this situation and simply advise her on the long term effects of Huntington’s Disease, then she could allow for Roberta to change her mind on her own. This would simply be an unbiased education program for Roberta, so that she would be able to make the best choice for herself and for her family in the future. By handling things this way, the social worker is still able to stand by his or her own morals, but also not force them upon anyone else and not attempt to convince anyone of anything. This is a situation where no one is in imminent danger and, therefore, there are no legal implications, so the social worker must be very careful when following the ethical code, because of the “complex relationships between justice, care and control in social welfare and the practical and ethical implications of these” (Brammer, 2007, P. 7). The reason why this ethical code is in place is because every person has a different idea about what is right and what is wrong. If each social worker was able to pressure his or her beliefs onto others, then nothing would ever get accomplished because every client would be another person for the social worker to attempt to convert. When in a position of power, it is very important to remain neutral so that the client is able to find his or her own path. In this particular situation, the client may be making a mistake that will greatly affect not only her own life, but the lives of two or more other people. This would make it very difficult for the social worker to sit idly by and not do or say anything about it, but from an ethical perspective, that is all that he or she can do. Throughout history, individuals have always had differing ideas of what is right and what is wrong. An example is that, for Aristotle, justice was described as being fair to others when interacting with them. This incorporates acting in a moral fashion towards everyone and being a just person. He also believed that individual justice could be used in order to rectify wrongs that were committed by individuals. This means that he believed in some sort of punishment for anyone who committed an immoral act because a good life was based on moral behavior. This ideology does not, however, factor ethics into the equation, which makes the argument incomplete. Saint Thomas Aquinas said that justice was brought about by God because he is the first cause of everything. Aquinas also says that God’s justice is always followed by mercy, since his first gift to the world is unconditional love. What this means is that Aquinas believed that everyone was given an equal chance, unless they acted in an immoral manner, in which case they would be punished and then subsequently forgiven. If this is the case, it could be argued that Roberta will be punished and, therefore, it is not up to the social worker to do anything about it. John Calvin believed that justice could only be achieved if the moral decay that had been brought about by the Catholic Church was eliminated, since the hierarchy of the Church was extremely corrupt. Justice for Calvin meant that men were punished equally for infidelity as men and that spousal abuse was a highly punishable offence as well. This raises another question, which is whether or not what Roberta is thinking of doing to her husband could be considered a form of spousal abuse. For Thomas Hobbes, justice meant that societies were formed by social contracts that everyone had to follow. To ensure that these contracts were not violated, punishment had to be given to those who violated them. He also believed that there should be an absolute authority that sets the standard that must be met by the citizens in order to avoid breaking this social contract. In this case, the social worker would have to determine if Roberta is breaking any sort of social contract by knowingly wanting to have a baby, despite the risk. Through these works it is possible to see what has happened over history with regards to justice and why a Code of Ethics is needed in social work. In the time of Aristotle, it was more individualized morality, where no clear boundaries were set. Then it went into the word of God as the primary method. In modern times, justice is defined by authority figures who are elected, which could possibly be a negative because there are very few universal laws left. Something that is illegal in one part of the world could be perfectly acceptable in another part of the world and something like giving birth to a baby that has a good chance of ending up with Huntington’s Disease is not immoral in the eyes of some, even though it is in the eyes of most. What this information means is that there is more to be considered that what the social worker believes, or even what the majority of society believes. This is not a right or wrong issue, since there are not any laws being broken, but rather only one individual’s belief going against another’s. Not being able to follow one’s personal beliefs on the job is one of the most frustrating things imaginable. This is because the social worker will witness an individual making a significant mistake, but will be powerless to do anything about it without breaking the Code of Ethics, which would be very detrimental to the worker’s career. Roberta, by asking the social worker not to tell her husband, has entered that social worker into a social contract that must be obeyed unless something significant happens and it is determined that imminent danger is present for someone because of this contract. Ethics are a funny thing because they are often the exact opposite of the moral thing to do and this is where peoples’ values get confused. On the surface, the ethical thing to do would be for the social worker to tell Roberta’s husband. This is because in telling her husband, the social worker could be preventing a child from being born that could end up with a serious disease, even though social workers are only permitted to “breach a duty of confidentiality to prevent serious crime” (Brayne, 2005, P. 95). This, however, is a personal value and not an ethical decision that can be made by the social worker. Also Roberta, despite her obvious moral shortcoming, is the social worker’s client and, therefore, her privacy must be respected. The information that is presented on her makes her seem like a selfish woman who wants a baby and does not care who gets hurt because of this desire. She wants her baby and she is willing to take the risk of this child being born with Huntington’s Disease in order to get this child. In actuality, Roberta could be a horrible person, who has possibly done even worse things in her life, but unless the social worker is legally obligated to tell someone, he or she must keep the confidentiality present in their relationship, or else he or she will be breaking the moral code. This scenario makes it possible to see the difference between personal values and workplace ethics, as they can be very difficult to keep separate in difficult cases such as this. For a social worker, it can be very difficult to see a client making a major, life altering mistake, but there is very little that can be done without breaking the ethical code, unless a law has been broken. In this particular case, all the social worker can do is attempt to educate Roberta about the potential problems that were child could encounter and hope that Roberta comes to her senses and makes the choice that will be in her family’s best interests. From a personal perspective, this is one of the most difficult things that a social worker will ever face, but it is something that must be done in order to uphold the integrity of the profession as a whole. Works Cited Beckett, Chris. (2005). Values and Ethics in Social Work: An Introduction. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Brayne, Hugh. (2005). Law for Social Workers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brammer, Alison. (2007). Social Work Law. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2005). "Code of Ethics". Ottawa, Ontario. Johns, Robert. (2005). Using the Law in Social Work (Transforming Social Work Practice). Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd. The Huntington Disease Association. "What is Huntington's Disease?". Viewed 19 March 2008. http://www.hda.org.uk/charity/whatishd.html Read More

Therefore, it should be obvious that a social worker would not be permitted to share this information, since Roberta said that she did not want it to be shared. Social workers can only go beyond this consent if they are required to by law and the social worker, in this case, would not be required to share this information by law. Morally and ethically, she probably should share the information, but it is not up to the social worker to make ethical decisions for the client, only for his or her own.

What this means is that even if the social workers truly believed that this situation was wrong and wanted to share this information with Roberta’s husband, he or she would not be able to under the Code of Ethics because “The general expectation that social workers will keep information confidential does not apply when disclosure is necessary to prevent serious, foreseeable and imminent harm to a client or others. In all instances, social workers disclose the least amount of confidential information necessary to achieve the desired purpose” (Canadian Association of Social Workers, 2005, P. 10). This information also raises another question regarding this scenario, as it should be asked whether or not the social worker should attempt to help Roberta to change her mind about having a baby without speaking to her husband about this first, as social workers “need to be careful since there are clear limitations on the extent of confidentiality“ (Johns, 2005, P. 133). What social workers are supposed to do is help the client in his or her best interests.

Which is difficult because “social work often deals with deeply personal and painful issues - mental illness, disability, the personal care of old people, the safety of children - the practice of social work has the potential to challenge deep-seated value positions on many subjects” (Beckett, 2005, P.1). This means that impartiality must be achieved, which can be difficult to do when dealing with so many different ethical issues. They must also avoid pushing their own views on a subject into the lives of the client.

In this situation, attempting to convince the client to tell her husband could be seen as the social worker pushing his or her views upon this other person, which should not be done. This situation could bring up a potential conflict within an individual, as he or she would have to deal with the ethics of bringing a child into the world that will have a high chance of getting this disease. The social worker, in this situation, would have to decide what the profession as a whole would say about this situation and then act accordingly.

The profession would probably state that one’s personal beliefs should not be brought into this situation and, therefore, the social worker has no right to attempt to convince Roberta on what to do or to attempt to change her mind. There is, however, another way of looking at this situation. Since it is the social worker’s duty to act in the best interest of the client, then he or she would be able to effectively discuss strategies with Roberta in order to minimize the problems that might occur.

If the social worker was to stop short of advising Roberta on what she should do in this situation and simply advise her on the long term effects of Huntington’s Disease, then she could allow for Roberta to change her mind on her own. This would simply be an unbiased education program for Roberta, so that she would be able to make the best choice for herself and for her family in the future. By handling things this way, the social worker is still able to stand by his or her own morals, but also not force them upon anyone else and not attempt to convince anyone of anything.

This is a situation where no one is in imminent danger and, therefore, there are no legal implications, so the social worker must be very careful when following the ethical code, because of the “complex relationships between justice, care and control in social welfare and the practical and ethical implications of these” (Brammer, 2007, P. 7).

Read More