NOHSE Guidelines - Essay Example

The NOHSE guidelines for human services provide detailed guidelines for the actions and services of humans in various capacities. There, however, are some guidelines that are problematic and that can be interpreted against human ethics and values so that they seem to contradict these values. The purpose of this paper shall be to identify some of these guidelines and explain the manners in which they are conflicting with these values are the reasons why they are determined to be problematic in adoption and application.

Discussion

The first guideline that is problematic and troubling is the requirement that human service professionals protect the client’s right to privacy and confidentiality at all times except when such privacy and confidentiality has the ability to cause direct harm to the client and others as may be stated by the state laws and any other stated conditions. This guideline is confusing and problematic in the area of human services because of the high level of subjectivity involved. In the event that the potential harm is not outlined by the state and or federal governments, any other interpretations is liable for subjectivity depending on the personal inclination of the persons. Because of the diversity of clients in their backgrounds and social lives, what may seem as harmful for the handling services may be safe and normal to the client, thus creating a conflict of interest.

The second problematic guideline is the requirement that human service professionals represent their qualifications to the public in an accurate manner. The level of accuracy is not defined in this case and as such, what may be accurate to one individual may not be perceived to be accurate to another individual. This, therefore, serves to build a case for conflict and possible confusion. The third problematic issue in the guidelines is the requirement that human service professionals negotiate with their clients the goals and objectives, purpose, and nature of the relationship with the clients prior to the relationship. This situation, however, is limited in the freedom of the relationship by the continuing clause that states that the professionals have the ability and predisposition to outline the limitations of the relationship. This negates the freedom of the clients in their role in the relationship, assigning all of the authority to the professionals instead. This also creates an ethical dilemma in that the professionals may take advantage of the limitations clause to limit the extent of the relationship for their own benefit or to deny the client some benefits (NOHSE, 1999).

These problems and contradictions can be resolved by restating the guidelines. The first guideline could be stated as ‘the human service professionals protect the client’s right to privacy and confidentiality at all times except when the privacy may cause the client and others harm as is in line with the state and federal regulations’. The second guideline could be stated as, ‘the human service professionals represent their qualifications to the public as is in accordance to the sector’s requirements’. The third guideline could be stated as, ‘the human service professionals should negotiate with their clients the goals and purposes and nature of the relationship prior to the relationship’, without the limitation clause.

The above representations serve to limit the problems and contradictions involved in the guidelines by making the statements more straightforward for the clients. This will enhance the relationship between human services professionals and their clients and will reduce the amount of conflict between them, leading to a more cooperative and fruitful relationship for them.