Law for Social work: Case Study

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.