Ethical Dilemmas Surface Frequently In Educational And Clini ✓ Solved

Ethical Dilemmas Surface Frequently In Educational And Clinical Practi

Ethical dilemmas frequently arise in educational and clinical practice settings. Consider examples such as: a person in a community-based home requests to move to a different residence, which could impact the agency's income and pose safety risks; the use of a behavior intervention system for a student with severe self-injurious behavior despite parental concerns; and a teacher navigating ethical challenges during an IEP meeting when faced with administrative pressure that could affect a student's access to necessary services. As behavior analysts or practitioners, it is essential to respond ethically in each scenario by balancing respect, safety, and advocacy, while maintaining professional integrity and considering the potential impact on clients and stakeholders.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Ethical dilemmas are an intrinsic part of professional practice in both educational and clinical settings, often requiring practitioners to navigate complex situations that involve conflicting values or interests. These dilemmas demand a nuanced understanding of ethical principles such as beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. This paper explores specific ethical challenges in practice, including client autonomy, safety, informed consent, and advocacy, with the aim of guiding behavior analysts and practitioners toward ethically sound decision-making based on established codes of ethics and principles of professional conduct.

Case 1: Ethical Response to Residential Transition Requests

The first scenario involves a resident of a community-based home for individuals with developmental disabilities who requests to move to a different setting. The director faces a conflict of interest, as approving the move could reduce the agency's income and increase costs, while also potentially placing the resident in a unsafe environment. From an ethical standpoint, the director must prioritize the resident’s preferences and safety, consistent with the American Psychological Association’s (2021) ethical principles, which emphasize respect for autonomy and beneficence. The director should conduct an objective assessment of the resident’s needs, preferences, and safety risks, and involve the resident and their support network in decision-making. Transparency about the potential risks and benefits of the move, along with seeking external consultation if necessary, would help mitigate conflict of interest influences and support an ethically justified decision (Robinson & Reicher, 2019). Ultimately, the goal is to respect the resident's right to autonomy while ensuring their safety and well-being, aligned with professional guidelines (BACB, 2020).

Case 2: Ethical Considerations in Implementing SIBIS Treatment

The second scenario involves a student with severe self-injurious behavior (SIB) for whom standard positive interventions have failed. The support coordinator suggests SIBIS, which involves electrical shocks, although the parents express concern about their child's safety and comfort. Ethically, practitioners must evaluate whether the intervention aligns with their duty to do no harm and to implement the least restrictive yet effective treatment (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968). Given the documented failure of positive approaches, and in the context of an individualized treatment plan, recommending SIBIS may be justified if supported by data indicating its safety and efficacy, and if the procedure is applied with informed consent and continuous monitoring (National Commission for the Certification of BCBA, 2015). Informed consent becomes paramount, especially considering parental fears; comprehensive education about the procedure, potential risks, and safeguards is essential. The practitioner must also adhere to ethical guidelines that stipulate interventions should only be used when supported by empirical evidence and when the benefits outweigh the risks (Lattal & St. Peter, 2021). Therefore, ethically, initiating SIBIS could be appropriate, provided all safeguards are in place and family concerns are addressed transparently.

Case 3: Advocacy During an IEP Meeting

The third scenario involves a first-year teacher, Ms. Dougherty, who witnesses an administrator attempting to influence IEP decisions to avoid providing recommended services, potentially depriving the student of essential interventions. The teacher fears retaliation but recognizes the importance of advocating for the student’s needs. Ethical advocacy entails balancing professional responsibility with personal safety, guided by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), which prioritize student access to appropriate services. Ms. Dougherty can serve as an advocate by documenting her concerns and observations, seeking support from colleagues or supervisors committed to ethical standards, and subtly influencing the decision-making process without risking job security (Hartzler & McLeskey, 2017). Communicating the importance of evidence-based interventions and the ethical obligation to serve the student’s best interests can also persuade the administrator to reconsider. Maintaining professionalism and confidentiality while advocating assertively aligns with ethical guidelines (BACB, 2020). Consequently, effective advocacy in this context involves strategic communication, documentation, and collaboration that uphold the student’s rights and professional standards.

Conclusion

In each of these scenarios, behavior analysts and educators are called to prioritize ethical principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. By applying ethical decision-making frameworks, consulting professional codes, and advocating for clients and students, practitioners can navigate dilemmas effectively. Continuous education on ethical standards and reflective practice are vital for maintaining integrity and ensuring that actions support the well-being and rights of those served.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2021). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
• American with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336.
• Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2020). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts. https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/PECC-EN-2020-07.pdf
• Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97.
• Hartzler, A. L., & McLeskey, J. (2017). Teacher advocacy and collaboration for special education services. Remedial and Special Education, 38(2), 105–113.
• Lattal, K. M., & St. Peter, F. P. (2021). Ethical considerations in the treatment of severe maladaptive behaviors. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(2), 327–336.
• National Commission for the Certification of BCBA. (2015). Standards for ethical practice. https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Standards_for_Ethical_Practice.pdf
• Robinson, G., & Reicher, S. (2019). Ethical decision-making in community-based interventions. Journal of Applied Ethics, 35(3), 404–420.