Ethical Dilemmas in Community Services

This assignment delves into the complexities of ethical decision-making in community services. Two scenarios are presented, each requiring the support worker to weigh competing interests and make difficult choices. The first scenario involves a client's confidential information and the potential consequences of breaching confidentiality. The second scenario presents a situation where a co-worker has acted in a manner inconsistent with organizational policies. The assignment encourages critical thinking and analysis of ethical issues, considering both the means and outcomes of actions. It also emphasizes the importance of praising intentions while correcting inappropriate methods.

COMMUNITY
SERVICES
Working Legally & Ethically
STUDENT ID:
[Pick the date]

SCENARIO 1
Issue
The key issue is whether I should adhere to parental confidentiality as required by my
profession or bend the rules keeping in mind Gary’s long term health.
Stakeholders
The key stakeholders are as follows.
 Garry
 His parents
 Myself
 Organisation since the reputation and business of the company could be impacted
 Garry’s ex-boyfriend since his relationship with Garry would be impacted by the
decision that I undertake in the scenario
Legal Issue
Breaching the parental confidential norms could have legal consequences owing to the nature
of practice and also breaking the rules of the organisation especially if it brings any disrepute.
Ethical Issue
There are two ethical dilemmas which are inherent in this situation.
1) As a support worker, I am required to maintain parental confidentiality which is
highlighted in the rules of the organisation as well. But on the other hand, as someone who
cares and provides support to the client, it might be worthwhile to take actions by bending
the rules for the long term well-being of the client. Hence, the ethical dilemma is whether
to maintain Garry’s trust or potential long term well-being (Kidder, 2013).
2) Also, ethical issue arises with regards to safeguard organisational interest on one hand and
securing client’s interest on the other. For safeguarding organisational interest, the rules of
parental confidentiality should not be violated but to secure Garry well-being in the long
run, it might be worthwhile to be flexible and communicate to his parents (Icheku, 2011)
Option

There are two options for me in the given scenario.
1) Ignore the advice given by the manager and continue to adhere to the parental
confidentiality norms irrespective of the consequences.
2) Go along with the managerial advice and be flexible with parental confidentiality rules
keeping in mind Garry’s long term well-being.
Final Decision
The preferred action would be to maintain the parental confidentiality with regards to Garry.
The above action is preferable since if the rules of parental confidentiality are bent in the
future and his parents do confront him regarding the issue of his ex-boyfriend, Garry could
potentially lose trust and faith on me. As a result, he would stop sharing with me which could
potentially prove to be more disastrous in the future as there would not be anyone of counsel
him if the need arises. A better course of action would be that if Garry does go back to his ex-
boyfriend, then I warn him about the potential long term impact owing to the health history of
his boyfriend. Additionally, also, I would like to educate him on the potential risks in being a
gay from the health perspective. This could potentially help him to safeguard his health in the
long term (White, 2017).
Informing the parents would on one hand breach the rules of parental confidentiality set by
the organisation and could potentially take things out of control. It is known that Garry’s
parents are already quite concerned of his decision to be gay. Hence, additional health
concerns could potentially trigger an extreme reaction from them which Garry may not listen
to since he might consider those concerns to be more on account of his being gay rather than
the health history of his ex-boyfriend.
SCENARIO 2
Issue
The key issue is whether the co-worker should have acted in a manner which is inconsistent
with the organisation for helping his neighbour.
Stakeholders

The key stakeholders are as follows.
 Co-worker
 Organisation employing the co-worker
 Myself as my decision could alter my relationship with the co-worker
Legal Issue
It might be possible that the owner who chopped the tree may go to the cops and file a
complaint that the co-worker threatened him/her citing his professional influence.
Ethical Issue
The key ethical dilemma in this scenario is that while the co-worker did a good deed by
helping her neighbour but at the same time he acted in a manner which is not consistent with
the organisation. This is because he used his company ID even though the neighbour was not
a client and thus potentially adversely impacted the organisation’s commercial interests
(Kidder, 2013).
Options
There are potentially three choices that I have in the scenario provided. These are
summarised below.
 Praise the co-worker for helping his neighbour without any reference to the method
 Praise the co-worker for helping the neighbour but simultaneously explain him that
the manner in which he acted was inappropriate and the fact that he should not have
used the company ID and represented the neighbour.
 Report the matter to the superiors so that suitable action can be taken against the co-
worker for inappropriate use of company’s ID.
Final Decision

In the given scenario, the most suitable decision would be to praise the co-worker for the
gesture but simultaneously point out that the means were no appropriate and similar abuse of
company’s power should not be done in the future.
It is imperative to praise the intention of the co-worker to help the neighbour. However, the
fact that the co-worker acted in a manner not approved by the organisation implies that he
should rectify the actions in the future. This is because acting in the manner that he did could
potentially adverse the commercial interests of organisation and also lead to job loss for the
co-worker. Not emphasising on the incorrectness of the manner of help would pass across the
message that only the final result is significant. However, this is not the case since both
means and outcome are important (Icheku, 2011).
Also, in relation with the reporting of the matter to the seniors or the appropriate authority,
such an action is not requisite. The reporting of the incident to the company would have been
required if my co-worker accepted money for offering services privately while using the
company’s ID. However, since the action was not driven by any financial gains but only to
extend help, hence I would not talk with my superiors about the incidence. However, if such
an action is repeated by my co-worker in the future, then the matter would have to be
reported so that the company can take suitable punitive action (White, 2017).

References
Icheku, V (2011). Understanding Ethics and Ethical Decision Making, 2nd ed. New York:
Xlibris Corporation
Kidder, R (2013) How Good People Make Tough Choices : Resolving the Dilemmas of
Ethical Living, 3rd ed., London: Harper Collins
White, T. (2017) Right and Wrong: A practical introduction to Ethics, 2nd ed. London: Wiley