Social Work Ethics - Case Study Example

Social Work Ethics Number Department Introduction As a social worker, my occupation advances social change, finds solutions to problems facing people in a society and empowers human well-being. Both the General Social Care Council (GSCC) and the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) codes of ethics will form the basis of my interventions in the defensive social work that aims to protect the girl-child from abuse (Simpson et al 2010, pp729-743). I will use deontological ethics because; it is my obligation to protect the child from abuse; and Virtue ethics as the latter advances the need of basing ethical considerations on moral ground. Virtue ethics contradicts deontology, hence will provide a balanced understanding of the problem facing Olivia family (Lymbery 2009, pp902-918; Cemlyn 2008, pp153-173). Social work theories and models will be used because various interventions are based upon them; any successes will impact my profession as an effective defensive social worker, and earn me more of such assignments in future. Ethical dilemmas The first ethical dilemma is whether or not to accept Will’s friend request on Facebook. Although, such action may be crucial in the search for truth or just the effort to get in touch with former clients, welcoming Will as a friend on the social networking site may not go down well with the mother. On the one hand, with Will as my friend on the site, he could open up and divulge to me more details about the abuse; but a refusal of his request may make him to shy away from revealing any more information (Jeyasingham 2012, pp669-686). Secondly, although the age of the Olivia’s boyfriend is not revealed, at least for now, chances are that anything to do with investigations might ruffle more feathers as far as Olivia is concerned. She might want to know the origin of the information, and or doubt its authenticity if told (Dickens 201, pp22-39; Dunworth 2007, pp151-168). Thirdly, although, children may be used in social work to assist with investigations, they are always regarded as unable to make rational judgements (Howe 2009, pp67-99; Howe 2008, pp43-59; Dominelli 2009., pp 73-86; Walker 2001, pp29-39). It is, therefore, an ethical dilemma to believe what Will is saying, because he is yet to attain the age of 18. Additionally, Will himself is just suspecting what might be going on; he is not sure yet. Fourth, whether or not to send the entire family members a friend request is also an ethical dilemma. Olivia might question the motive behind the action, especially after “contract” had expired. Social work theories and models Whereas, models of social work explore an array of connections but fall short of elaborating them (Bell & Allain 2011, pp266-280), theories come in handy to shore up an outline for elaborating a model (Galpin 2009, pp65-80), hence the need to use them simultaneously. It is notable, though, that during intervention programs such as the one involving Olivia family, the models would virtually be based on and linked with certain theories regarding the definition of social realism and the composition of society (Morris 2011, pp247-249). Manthorpe et al (2010, pp704-717) indicate that there are two major theoretical descriptions of the composition of the society. The consensus approach that implies in every social unit, it is important for social workers to usefully analyze it as orderly, steady and fair issue (Graham 2009, pp268-280). In this adopting a “normal” stance when working with the Olivia family is very important; otherwise, raising objections to the composition of her family, such as the boyfriend issue, might not yield desirable results (Yeung, & Ng 2011, pp281-298; Garrett 2005, pp1357-1376; Walker 2010, pp616-632). In this approach, the social challenges of abuse of Olivia’s girl-child by her boyfriend, which I’ve set for intervention, may not come to be because of the manner in which family is composed (Brewis 2009, pp761-777). Therefore, interventions premised upon this theoretical approach would concentrate on the abusive man as the origin of inappropriate behaviour. On the contrary, the conflict approach is that the society may be a fragmented, disruptive unit (Carey 2008, pp918-935). Chih (2009, pp1520-1528) argues that this theory is based on social challenges being triggered by the imbalanced distribution of authority in a social setting; for instance, Olivia may be infatuated with more power in terms of finances, than most prospective husbands can manage, hence her fragmented family life. According to Collins (2008, pp422-439), interventions driven by this theoretical approach would, therefore, revolve around the society as a cause of the inappropriate behaviour of Olivia’s boyfriend. In this defensive social work, different hypotheses about the essence of social realism and the various societal factors can culminate in variations in terms of understanding a model (Carey, & Foster 2011, pp576-593). Nonetheless, for now, it is notable that in this case the models of interventions would be based on particular theoretical approaches explaining the values of social realism and humanity such as the need to have a stable family (Moriarty et al, 2009. pp363-379; Mutch 2010, pp.517-535; Manthorpe et al 2010, pp584-598; Powell, & Orme 2011, pp1566-1585). Gibbs Reflective Model Gibbs Reflective Model offered a clear understanding of the case. Under the model, I would record all the details of the case for easy analysis an intervention. For instance, my infrequent use of the social networking site Facebook was the source of information regarding the abuse case in Olivia’s family. She is 41, her four children are under 16. The act, meted by Olivia’s boyfriend is taking place at 11:30 pm; I thought the details were still scanty as the reporter, a minor, and seems not to be sure of the problem behaviour. Although, my thoughts at the time were to keep quiet and carry out more investigations to ascertain the claims, later on I thought of getting in touch with Olivia to find out whether she was home. At the time, I had negative feelings about the act but later on summoned the courage and positive feelings in order to intervene. Olivia did not sense anything wrong with my asking of her whereabouts; this satisfactorily resolved her emotions, as it was very crucial in the afterward intervention processes (McLeod, & Bywaters, 2000, pp 15-45). . The relationship between Olivia and her boyfriend affected the outcome of the intervention, because I was not sure whether she was ready to handle the situation. The whistle-blower also influenced the outcome, because, though, the allegations were damning, and needed serious and quick interventions, they came from a child who was not sure in the first place. Children are not regarded as rational thinkers; their mind is yet to mature. The social networking site helped to pass over the information to me early enough. The nature of the Olivia’s lifestyle hindered the intervention, as she could not be available during the day due to job commitments. Olivia’s boyfriend was always reaching the house ahead of her. This allowed him adequate time to leap into the bedroom of Will’s sister and abuse her. The man would demand to see her naked. Alternative actions would have been to advice Olivia to change her work schedule and return home earlier enough to monitor her family (Leung 2011, pp43-52; Parrott 2009, pp617-630). Additionally, I would advice Olivia to set aside one bed-room for the children to sleep in and employ a house-help to monitor the children when she is away. I would have not accepted Will’s friend request; and offered an excuse instead, because by so doing I would avoid cases of the mother complaining about “doing things behind her back.” If I encounter such a case in future I would bring all the main participants on, but one at a time, to avoid any early reservations that might be a threat to the intervention, and then talk out the problem with the participants who should discuss the issue together. Proper investigations of the cases and understanding of the character of the subjects is crucial in securing positive outcomes in future. And to learn the behaviour of the clients, an open dialogue would be very important. Conclusion To unearth the problem behaviour and work toward resolving it, I would employ cognitive-behavioural models, as these would offer the answers to the question, why Olivia’s boyfriend behaves the way he does. Behaviourism stems from the notion that behaviours are acquired, which means he may have acquired the behaviour from Olivia, more so if he was younger than her. Olivia’s conduct, for instance, of not showing up in the house early, may also have reinforced his problem behaviour. Additionally, the urgency of the intervention also requires the task-centred model, because it involves psychological measures that yield appropriate results as fast as possible, regardless of the outcome. In this case I would get in touch with the whole family, including Olivia’s boyfriend, but focus on individual discussions with Will, the victim, Olivia and the boyfriend and then initiate dialogue with the couple to ventilate on the grey areas and find an amicable solution to the problem. These may include counselling for the couple and the victim, and medical care for the victim. References Bell, L., & Allain, L. 2011. Exploring Professional Stereotypes and Learning for Inter-professional Practice: An Example from UK Qualifying Level Social Work Education. Social Work Education, 309(3), pp266-280. Brewis, G. 2009. From working parties to social work: middle-class girls education and social service 1890-1914. History of Education, 38(6), pp761-777. Carey, M. 2008. Everything Must Go? The Privatization of State Social Work. British Journal of Social Work, 38(5), pp918-935. Carey, M., & Foster, V. 2011. Introducing ‘Deviant’ Social Work: Contextualising the Limits of Radical Social Work whilst Understanding (Fragmented) Resistance within the Social Work Labour Process. British Journal of Social Work, 41(3), pp576-593. Cemlyn, S. 2008. Human Rights and Gypsies and Travellers: An Exploration of the Application of a Human Rights Perspective to Social Work with a Minority Community in Britain. British Journal of Social Work, 38(1), pp153-173. Chih, H.S. 2009. Medicalising disability? Regulation and practice around fitness assessment of disabled students and professionals in nursing, social work and teaching professions in Great Britain. Disability & Rehabilitation, 31(18), pp1520-1528. Collins, S. 2008. Open and Distance Learning in Qualifying Social Work Education in Britain and the USA: Celebrating Diversity and Difference? Social Work Education, 27(4), pp422-439. Dickens, J. 2011. Social Work in England at a Watershed—As Always: From the Seebohm Report to the Social Work Task Force. British Journal of Social SWork, 41(1), pp22-39. Dominelli, L. 2009. Introducing Social Work: Polity Short Introductions. London: Polity. Dunworth, M. 2007. Growing Your Own: The Practice Outcomes of Employment-based Social Work Training. An Evaluative Case Study of One Agencys Experience. Social Work Education, 26(2), pp151-168. Galpin, D. 2009. Who Really Drives the Development of Post-Qualifying Social Work Education and What are the Implications of This? Social Work Education, 28(1), pp65-80. Garrett, P.M. 2005. Irish Social Workers in Britain and the Politics of (Mis) Recognition. British Journal of Social Work, 35(8), pp1357-1376. Graham, M. 2009. Reframing Black Perspectives in Social Work: New Directions? Social Work Education, 28(3), pp268-280. Howe, D. 2008.The Emotionally Intelligent Social Worker. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Howe, D. 2009. A Brief Introduction to Social Work Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jeyasingham, D. 2012. White Noise: A Critical Evaluation of Social Work Educations Engagement with Whiteness Studies. British Journal of Social Work, 42(4), pp669-686. Leung, T.T.F. 2011. Client Participation in Managing Social Work Service--An unfinished Quest. Social Work, 56(1), pp43-52. Lymbery, M. 2009. Troubling Times for British Social Work Education? Social Work Education, 28(8), pp902-918. Manthorpe et al. 2010. Applications to Social Work Programmes in England: Students as Consumers? Social Work Education, 29(6), pp584-598. Manthorpe et al. 2010. Changes in Admissions Work Arising from the New Social Work Degree in England. Social Work Education, 29(7), pp704-717. McLeod, E., & Bywaters, P. 2000. Social Work, Health, and Equality. London: Routledge. Moriarty et al. 2009. Hanging on a Little Thin Line: Barriers to Progression and Retention in Social Work Education. Social Work Education, 28(4), pp363- 379. Morris, K. 2011. The Challenges for UK Social Work Education: Some Reflections. Social Work Education, 30(3), pp247-249. Mutch, A. 2010. Improving the Public House in Britain, 1920-40: Sir Sydney Nevile and Social Work.’ Business History, 52(4), pp.517-535. Parrott, L. 2009. Constructive Marginality: Conflicts and Dilemmas in Cultural Competence and Anti-Oppressive Practice. Social Work Education, 28(6), pp617-630. Powell, J., & Orme, J. 2011. Increasing the Confidence and Competence of Social Work Researchers: What Works? British Journal of Social Work, 41(8), pp1566-1585. Simpson et al. 2010. Student Views on Good Practice in Social Work Education. Social Work Education, 29(7), pp729-743. Walker, S. 2001.Tracing the contours of postmodern social work. British Journal of Social Work, 31(1), pp 29-39. Walker, S. 2010. Back to the Future of Social Work: Child and Adolescent Mental Health and the Post Qualifying Curriculum in England and Wales. Social Work Education, 29(6), pp616-632. Yeung, Y.E., & Ng, S. 2011. Engaging Service Users and Carers in Health and Social Care Education: Challenges and Opportunities in the Chinese Community. Social Work Education, 30(3), pp281-298. Read More