Identify A Specific Ethical Issue In Human Services Praxis

500 Wordsidentify A Specific Ethical Issue In Human Services Practice

Identify a specific ethical issue in human services practice. Examples include mandated group attendance and client social media requests. Look to your lesson content for ideas. Write a story (i.e., case study) about a fictitious scenario where this ethical issue arises. Be sure to fully explore the details with information about who, what, where, when, why, how, etc.

The main character should be the human services professional who is faced with this situation. Use the 8-Step Ethical Decision-making Model to work through the situation. What is the problem or dilemma? Describe in clear, detailed terms. What are the potential issues involved? Refer to principles and other course concepts.

What ethical code sections pertain to this situation? (ACA, NASW, AAMFT) Do any laws or regulations apply to the situation? (as best you can tell) What guidance/advice might a supervisor or consultant give about this? List all of the possible decisions and/or actions the human services professional could take in the situation. What are all the potential paths? For each possible decision/action, identify the outcome. What would happen?

Out of these, select one outcome that you think best demonstrates sound ethical reasoning. Explain your reasoning.

Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of human services, ethical dilemmas often challenge professionals to balance competing obligations, principles, and client needs. A particularly complex scenario involves a human services professional, Maria, working at a community mental health center, who is faced with the ethical issue of monitoring a client’s social media activity after the client requests confidentiality regarding their online posts. This situation underscores the tension between respecting client autonomy and confidentiality versus the clinician’s duty to prevent harm and ensure safety.

Maria’s client, James, a young adult diagnosed with depression and anxiety, confides in her during a counseling session that he is worried about recent threatening comments he has seen on his social media account. Subsequently, James explicitly requests that Maria not review his social media posts, insisting that he wants to maintain his privacy and autonomy. However, Maria is concerned that the threatening comments could indicate imminent harm to James or others, thereby raising questions about her ethical obligations. The core dilemma revolves around whether Maria should respect James’s request for privacy or whether she should proactively review his social media to prevent potential harm.

Applying the 8-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model (Corey, Corey, and Callanan, 2015), Maria begins by identifying the problem: Should she review James’s social media despite his request? The potential issues include violations of client confidentiality, possible breach of trust, and legal concerns, versus the ethical obligation to do no harm and protect client and public safety. Her primary principles include autonomy, confidentiality, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, as outlined by the NASW Code of Ethics (NASW, 2021). Laws related to mandatory reporting and digital privacy could influence her decision.

Consulting her supervisor, Maria receives guidance to weigh the importance of client autonomy against the duty to prevent harm. The supervisor advises considering whether there is an imminent threat and to document all actions and decisions meticulously. Maria considers multiple options: (1) Respect James’s request and do not review his social media; (2) Gently persuade James to allow her to review the posts; (3) Review the posts without his consent to assess potential harm; or (4) Refer James to a higher authority or crisis intervention if imminent danger is suspected.

Each choice bears distinct outcomes: Respecting his privacy may preserve trust but could overlook an imminent risk; persuading might lead to partial disclosures; reviewing without consent could breach ethical and legal standards; referring might escalate intervention while respecting autonomy. Ultimately, Maria must select the decision that best aligns with ethical standards and promotes safety.

Considering all options, Maria opts to gently explain her ethical and legal obligation to consider safety and, if risk appears imminent, to review social media content with James’s consent or through appropriate legal channels. This approach maintains respect, fosters trust, and adheres to ethical principles, while preparing to act swiftly if the social media content indicates imminent harm. This choice exemplifies sound ethical reasoning—balancing respect for client autonomy with beneficence and nonmaleficence to prevent harm.

References

  • American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. American Counseling Association.
  • National Association of Social Workers. (2021). NASW code of ethics. NASW.
  • Corey, G., Corey, M. S., & Callanan, P. (2015). Issues and ethics in the helping professions (9th ed.). Brooks Cole.
  • Kennedy, C. (2020). Ethical challenges in digital age mental health. Journal of Ethical Practice, 12(3), 45-52.
  • Reamer, F. G. (2018). Social work in a digital age: Ethical challenges and responsibilities. Social Work, 63(2), 131-138.
  • Wheeler, M. (2019). Confidentiality, social media, and professional boundaries in human services. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 58(2), 112-127.
  • Garrity, M., et al. (2022). Online privacy and safety in mental health services. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 25(4), 259-266.
  • American Psychological Association. (2022). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.
  • Sullivan, N. (2021). Navigating boundaries in digital times: Ethical considerations for practitioners. Ethics & Behavior, 31(2), 97-110.
  • Holmes, E. & Long, K. (2017). Protecting client confidentiality in social media age. Journal of Ethical Practice, 9(1), 29-37.

Related Assignments