Law for Social work: Case Study

This case study discusses the ethical dilemma faced by a social worker in dealing with a critically ill mother and her son. The paper explores the human rights, legislation, and ethical theories that are relevant to the case. The viable causes of action are also discussed in detail.

1
University
Law for Social work: Case Study
by
Name
Date
Lecturer’s Name

2
Law for Social work: Case Study
Case description and the ethical dilemma
The choice of scenario for this paper is a case in which a 33-year-old mother of a two-
year-old boy named David, born in Australia is admitted to hospital with cancer. Having been at
the hospital before, her situation has deteriorated, leading to being readmitted this time for pain
management and the end of life patient care. She is initially from China, but has a permanent
Australian residence permit; she is therefore treated as an Australian under the relevant laws
when surrounded by various circumstances.
In working with Su Yi, it is important to note that she is separated from the child’s father
and doesn’t want to involve him in the negotiations of custody in case of an eventuality. Her
family is in Hong Kong, and her only supportive sister who lives in Australia wants to take her
son back to stay with her parents in Hong Kong. Because of the situation, a social worker has
been referred to support the family. Her sister and the social worker have however not met
because of the difference in their timings at the hospital’s visiting hours. The only information
the social worker has is that her sister intends to return David to stay with his grandparents in
Hong Kong.
There are three ethical problems presented by this case.
1. David's mother is critically ill and is put on an end of life patient care at the hospital, yet
she doesn't want to involve David's father in the discussion of their son’s life in case her
life comes to an end. She cites abusiveness and that he hasn't bothered to see their son
since their separation as her main reason.
2. The second ethical problem presented by this case is that; David is an Australian yet his
grandparents are from Hong Kong, and the suggestion by the aunt to send him back to

3
stay with his grandparents in Hong Kong under such circumstances would pose a lot of
legal and ethical challenges to the social worker under the Australian laws. According to
Kennedy, Richards, and Leiman (2013), the social worker is obligated to contact the
relevant authorities and include all the information surrounding the planned sending of
the boy to Hong Kong, and the relationship between his parents. There is, however, no
law that can be used by the Australian authorities that can compel Sun Yi’s sister to take
care of the boy. That is despite having been supportive to the family, but the social
worker is under obligation to initiate a conversation aimed at ensuring that the boy stays
safe within the Australian soil (Kennedy, Richards and Leiman 2013).
3. The third ethical issue presented by the case is Su Yi’s inability to speak on her own
regarding the best way she would have wished to have her son taken care of in case of her
death. Despite having shared her relationship story with the social worker, the social
worker hasn’t had an opportunity to speak to David’s father or Su Yi’s sister on the
matter. Therefore the social worker is in a dilemma since there is no one to corroborate
Su Yi’s story. According to McAuliffe (2014), the social worker must collaborate with all
the organizations and individuals likely to be affected by the case such as the family
members, colleagues, and the relevant authorities on this matter before making a final
recommendation.
Ethical decision-making considerations
Human rights: Australia is a member of the international community and is therefore
bound by the international human rights laws (Steiner, Alston, and Goodman 2008). Hence all
the seven treaties on human rights are as applicable in Australia as they are in China. The most

4
applicable treaty to this case scenario is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR).
Article 6 – The right to life: The above section of the article explains and guards the
sanctity of life. End of life however painful has been argued as an infringement of this section of
the human rights laws by various human rights activists. End of life support is aimed at affording
critically ill patient an opportunity to die without too much suffering. Doctors and medical
practitioners from all over the world are under no obligation to prolong life; they can only save
lives. Therefore the end of life care is a personal decision made by the patient under guidance by
the relevant stakeholders including the social worker in this case. The only difference is that the
social worker is more involved with the emotional support other than the medical assistance.
The same chapter also talks about the child rights; it recognizes that every child has an
inherent right to life. Therefore anything that is deemed to deny a child an opportunity to live a
healthy life is considered abuse on the child's human rights (Unicef, 1989). Therefore, while
dealing with Su Yi, the social worker must recognize the rights of David. Such considerations
may include life after the mother's death concerning family ties, education, and healthcare.
Article 7 – Freedom from inhumane, cruel and degrading treatments. The end of life
treatment may be deemed less cruel and degrading to Su Yi, but it is inhumane. It's been argued
as abuse on the sanctity of life. The chapter contravenes David's rights to family. His only
family has been put on the end of life support, despite being young; some of these experiences
may live with him throughout his life. Therefore the social worker also needs to appeal to
David’s emotions and create an environment of hope and not an assurance of eventual death of
Su Yi.

5
Article 17 – Right to the respect of one's private life. Su Yi’s private life is guarded by
this section of the law. The social worker needs to be aware that any efforts to coarse her into
staying with her sister’s son involuntarily would amount to an abuse of her right to privacy.
Article 18 – Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. It can be assumed that being
from Hong, she isn't familiar with the children’s act and adoption laws. Therefore she cannot be
prosecuted for suggesting that her sister's son should be taken back to China. However, if she
acted on her thought, then she would have infringed on David’s constitutional right as an
Australian citizen by birth; and she would, therefore, be liable to prosecution for failing to follow
due process.
The second human rights document which applies to this case is International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The treaty in which Australia is a signatory
has standard guidelines on the rights to life, education, health, and adequate living standards
(Craven 1995). Therefore while dealing with Su Yi, the social worker must ensure that the
conditions under which she spends her final days alive are humane, that he son's future regarding
education, standards of living are considered.
The convention is split into five parts: however only part one, two and three are essential
to this case. While dealing with Su Yi’s family, it’s important to note that self-determination
rights are a human rights provision. It is therefore advisable that Su Yi’s wishes be given the
most critical consideration regarding the custody of his son. It is unclear though, whether she
shares the same desires as he sister concerning sending David back to Hong Kong to go and live
with her parents. The second part guards against racial, nationality, religious, political or opinion
discrimination. The social worker, in this case, must be aware of the racial differences in this

6
case; being from a foreign origin doesn’t make her any less than the indigenous Australians, and
therefore she must get equal medical care within the facility as a human rights requirement. The
social worker must determine whether her decision to accept an end of life care is racially
instigated or a personal choice. That is because a previous study has shown that practitioner’s
preferences for end of life differ, depending on race (Mebane, E. et al., 1999).
However, Volandes, A. et al., (2008) offers contradicting research. In their study, it
was concluded that health illiteracy is the primary factor that contributes to the
preference for the end of life care. Therefore in handling Su Yi, the social worker needs
to be aware of such findings and ensure that they are not major contributing factors in
this case (Kennedy, Richards, &Leiman 2016 ed.). Or else the same would be considered
human rights infringements. The social worker must ensure that the patient is aware of
the treatment she has been put under.
The legislation: The first act which influences the decision made in this case is the
children, young people and their family's act 1997. The Australian constitution defines a child or
a young person as “anybody under the age of 18”, which is also the age guideline set by the
international human rights commission (Kennedy, Richards, and Leiman, 2013). Anybody within
this age bracket is exempted from certain decisions; for example, if David were 18, he would
have a right to stop the end of life care administered on her mother. Therefore in this case; the
decision rests upon Su Yi and the medical practitioners. The same act also provides. According to
section 8 (3) of the statute, the child is also protected from leaving the country in the company of
anyone other than legal guardians or parents (Kennedy, Richards, &Leiman 2016 ed.). Therefore.

7
It would be important for the social worker to note, that, at the age of 2, David would not be
allowed to travel to China in the company of none other than her mother.
The other legislative act relevant to this case the family act of 1977; which was later
amended in December 2017 to increase its scope to cover both immigrants and indigenous
Australians effectively. The law handles all issues related to the families of all Australians at both
local and international levels. It, however, does not severe relationships between the immigrant
families and the families from their home countries. The guidelines are clear on this case; since
Australia allows dual citizenships, it would be advisable for the social worker to find out if Su Yi
is a dual citizen; which would make David a dual citizen by her parent's origin. However, the
decision to choose which between China and Australia cannot be made until he turns 18.
The same act in section part III, division 1 explains the functions of the family as
consultants. The law is critical to the case because the social worker through collaboration must
be in a position to consult Su Yi’s family members. This has however not been possible since her
only sister in Australia hasn't been at the hospital at the time when the social worker is on duty.
At the same time, David's father hasn't been available since their separation.
AASW Code of ethics: the first section relevant to this section 3.1 “respect for persons."
This section is important to this case because there have been cases when those who are
considered to be dying eventually are subjected to mistreatment. The social workers, in this case,
should be the champion of the voice of hope. The second section relevant to this case is 3.2
“Social justice." The social worker needs to ensure that Su Yi’s and family are treated fairly
irrespective of their origin, race or financial status. My decision-making process will be based on
the background information gained relatively through credible sources. The decisions would take

8
into consideration the issues of race, the conditions of the patient and valuable relationships to
make a decision deemed helpful to the child and for fostering lasting relationships among the
family members for the sake of David.
Ethical theories: The ethical theories recommended for this case would be the “individual
dimension theory” and are “essential dimension” theory. These two theories are interrelated.
After identifying the participants in the first theory, the identification of the case principal is
made in the second theory (Gray 2009). There are two people to consider in this case; that is
David and his mother. A decision on what to do as a social worker mainly relies on this theory.
The other parties to the case are secondary; therefore it would be considered that David lies at
the center of all decision making in this case.
Policies: The most critical organizational policy relevant to this case is the policy of equal
treatment. The kind of disease Su Yi is suffering from puts her in a disadvantaged position. There
are cases where social workers have given preference to those suffering from treatable diseases
at the expense of those suffering from terminal illnesses regarding service provision (Ife 2012).
The policy, therefore, acts as a guideline and constant reminder that the organization would not
tolerate any form of discrimination against its patients.
The viable cause of action
The first cause of action would be to ensure that David is protected from leaving the
country in the company of anyone. The second cause of action would be to ensure that he is
under an excellent child care facility. The reason for the former would be to eliminate the
chances of him being flown out of the country by his aunt while the reason for the latter would
encourage healthy mental and physical development of the child. I would consult with Su Yi’s

9
sister on custody issues before submitting a final recommendation which would involve adoption
among other options. I would also consult with colleagues, and other professionals on whether to
contact David’s father and the legal and social ramifications of the action.
The viable causes of action would be beneficial to all the parties involved. It would be
emotional relieving for Su Yi to know that her son is in good care at child care facility. The same
may also help ease the physical pain. It would also be essential to avoid any form of future legal
cases as a result of failing to contact David's father before making any decisions. Ensuring that
Su Yi’s son does not leave the country would help reduce the costs incurred in tracing him in
case of such an incident. All these actions are aimed at protecting every part involved, legally,
socially and economically.
There are also a few risks posed as a result of some of these actions. The first significant
risk would be on David whose life may change for the worst should his father come back to his
life and prove to be abusive. The other risk will be if her aunt opts to adopt him and prove to be
unfit to be a mother. Therefore, irrespective of the decision taken, the child's well being must be
monitored at various time intervals for early intervention should the decision prove to be
ineffective.
The main potential conflict between the social worker’s professional, personal values and
the organization's requirements are many and varied. In this case, a social worker may be
emotionally involved with a patient; too much empathy may lead to a social worker advising the
patient to consider their position on the issue of end of life care. For example, if the organization
has succeeded in its recommendation on the end of life care and the social worker advises Su Yi

10
otherwise, it would be considered a conflict between personal values and organizational
requirements.
My decision to ensure that David is taken care of under the best child care environment is
in accordance with article 7 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
which states that every person is entitled to humane treatment, free from degradation or cruel
treatment. The action would ensure that the child leaves and developed under the internationally
accepted standards of life and is protected by the Australian laws.
The decision to shield the child from leaving the country is in according to section 8 (3)
of the children, young persons and their families act which protects the child from leaving the
country in the company of anyone other than legal guardians or parents (Kennedy, Richards,
&Leiman 2016 ed.).
The viable causes of action would be beneficial to all the parties involved. It
would be emotional relieving for Su Yi to know that her son is in good care at child care facility.
The same may also help ease the physical pain. It would also be essential to avoid any form of
future legal cases as a result of failing to contact David's father before making any decisions.
Ensuring that Su Yi's son does not leave the country would help reduce the costs incurred in
tracing him in case of such an incident. All these actions are aimed at protecting every part
involved, legally, socially and economically.

11

12
Bibliography
Craven, M., 1995. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: a
perspective on its development. Clarendon Press.
Gray, M., 2009. Moral sources and emergent ethical theories in social work. British Journal of
Social Work, 40(6), pp.1794-1811.
Ife, J., 2012. Human rights and social work: Towards rights-based practice. Cambridge
University Press.
Kennedy, R., Richards, J., and Leiman, T., 2013. Integrating human service law, ethics and
practice. Oxford University Press.
McAuliffe, D., 2014. Interprofessional ethics: Collaboration in the social, health and human
services. Cambridge University Press.
Mebane, E.W., Oman, R.F., Kroonen, L.T. and Goldstein, M.K., 1999. The Influence of
Physician Race, Age, and Gender on Physician Attitudes Toward Advance Care
Directives and Preferences for End‐Of‐Life Decision‐Making. Journal of the American
Geriatrics Society, 47(5), pp.579-591.
Steiner, H.J., Alston, P. and Goodman, R., 2008. International human rights in context: law,
politics, morals: text and materials. Oxford University Press, USA
Unicef, 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Child labor, p.8..
Volandes, A.E., Paasche-Orlow, M., Gillick, M.R., Cook, E.F., Shaykevich, S., Abbo, E.D. and
Lehmann, L., 2008. Health literacy not race predicts end-of-life care preferences. Journal
of palliative medicine, 11(5), pp.754-762.