Ethical Dilemma Discussion and Reflection: Children's Rights

This essay presents a reflection on an ethical dilemma faced by an educator in an early childhood setting, focusing on a situation where a child's parents' wishes conflicted with the child's need for sleep and rest. The essay begins by defining ethical dilemmas and outlining their characteristics. It then explores the specific dilemma, analyzing it through the lens of children's rights as defined by the UNCRC and relevant legislation, particularly concerning the child's right to rest and the educator's responsibilities. The rationale for the educator's decision to prioritize the child's need for sleep is provided, supported by legal and professional considerations, including standards set by the Australian government and the NSW Legislation. The essay further delves into the ethical principles adopted, such as beneficence and justice, and applies ethical theories like deontology, utilitarianism, and rights theory to justify the chosen course of action. The essay concludes by emphasizing the importance of prioritizing children's rights, applying ethical principles, and considering all aspects when addressing ethical dilemmas in educational settings. The essay demonstrates a clear understanding of the ethical and legal frameworks governing childcare practices.

Running head: ETHICAL DILEMMA
Ethical Dilemma Discussion and Reflection
Student’s Name:
Institution:

ETHICAL DILEMMA 2
The Dilemma
Mayah who is two and a half years old always get tired and agitated after lunch. As per
the instructions from her parents, Mayah should not be allowed to sleep in the afternoon. The
reason is that it is going to be difficult for her to get sleep at night. As an educator and being
concerned with Mayah’s needs for sleep I allowed her to sleep, however, her parents found her
sleeping when they visited the institution, complained and reported the matter to the director.
Introduction
As per yourdictionary (2019), the ethical dilemma gets defined as situations where
choices have to be taken in between two options in which any of the alternatives presented does
not provide an ethically acceptable approach. The characteristics of an ethical dilemma as per
Allen (2019) are that ethical dilemma can be absolute or pure. This is where there is a situation
in which two or more e ethical standards are applicable to a case and thus creating conflict with
each other. The other characteristic is the approximate dilemma. This entails a complicated
situation requiring decision but is conflicting between laws, policies, and values (Allen. 2019).
The ethical dimensions in this involve three parties. The staff of the institution has a role to take
care of the child within the school and that what the child requires as per child’s rights must be
provided. The second dimension is the parents who have the responsibility of taking care of their
child. Irrespective of them being the parents does not take away the role of the staff as a teacher.
The second dimension is the child and children’s rights. Even though the parents require the
child to stay awake in the afternoon, the child’s rights cannot be overridden by the demands of
the parents.
The essay is going to discuss the rationale of the solution arrived at in the interest of
children’s rights, how the legal aspect made the dilemma for different roles, the impact of ERC

ETHICAL DILEMMA 3
in shaping part of the solution, professional considerations taken to shape part of the solution, the
adopted ethical principles, theories and in the end give a conclusion.
The Rational for the Solution
There is an emphasis by the Australian Government to concentrate on early years in
ensuring the wellbeing of children in the course of their developmental stages so that they
increase their productivity of the nation. The need for these changes is incognizant with the fact
that children’s early years are crucial as it determines their present as well as future health,
wellbeing, and growth (ACECQA, 2013). NSW Legislation (2011) outlines the standards that
have to be incorporated by child care institutions as well as childcare staff. There are numerous
standards set that each staff, as well as the organization, must observe. In this case, a focus is on
the safety and health of children while at the care centers (NSW Legislation, 2011). The standard
categorically highlights the practices of youngsters’ sleep and rest with a concentration on
welfare, health, as well as safety in meeting their individual needs. There must be ample space
for children to rest and sleep that is clean and standardized (Nair, Baltag, Bose, Boschi-Pinto,
Lambrechts & Mathai, 2015). The staff has a role of giving restful, active experiences, and
support children in making necessary decisions on their participation. The standards state the role
of the care center, the educator and that the children’s need for sleep in clearly articulated and the
concerned risk a penalty of $1000 if they do not act as stipulated. Additionally, the educator has
a responsibility to ensure that children get the need for rest and sleep while at the care center
(NSW Legislation, 2011). Atkinson (2018) asserts that the UNCRC clearly set the regulations for
the rights of children and posits that the children have a right to protection, development,
welfare, as well as civil rights. Hopkins (2006) augmented that children have their rights met
while at the hands of duty providers, the right to get shelter, moral treatment, and guarded

ETHICAL DILEMMA 4
against abuses. This ought to be done in a manner that is identical to our own rights since they
are moral beings (Hopkins, 2006). In the regard, it is clear that the parent is not in the correct
position given the immense supports and standards set in articulating the rights of children in
care centers. As a matter of fact, the educator is on the right part in following what the standards
require in cases of children’s sleep and rest and thus taken all professional considerations in
letting the child get rest and sleep (Atkinson, 2018).
The Professional Perspective
In the duty of caring children, professionals have to the responsibility of ensuring good
learning environment as well as practices for children as they are in the process of learning while
at the same time undergoing their developmental stages in early life. Professionals have been
equipped with skills, and knowledge that span across of children’s disciplines, has a task to play
the rules (Robinson, 2005). The professional has the role of keeping a safe environment for the
child as well as making them comfortable both in the classroom as well as while resting or
sleeping. In this aspect and with the cognizant of the laid down standards and procedures that get
coupled with children’s rights, it was a product to let the child sleep even though this was in
contrary to the requirements of the parents. This is going to help the institution’s image (Levy,
2011). As per Alderson (2008) responsibility is another aspect taken into consideration as a
professional. The role to let children get what they require based on the set regulations as well as
standards both at the education center and in the country at large. This is a tall order of not letting
anything slip out of the hands (Alderson, 2008).
The Ethical Principles Adopted
In relation to Brand & McEwen (2016) ethical principles serve to guide an individual in
dealing with particular dilemmas in society. Society is full of contradicting views, opinions, and

ETHICAL DILEMMA 5
tasks that require invoking the rule of law to salvage the situation. The care centers have no
exemption since they are in constant interaction with children whose rights have to be respected
at all times based on set standards (Brand & McEwen, 2016). In relation to the case, the first
ethical principle adopted is beneficence. The principle set out that an action undertaken must be
for the benefit of others. It ensures that benefits get provided and the benefits or risk get the
balance as well. Under the principle, there is support on protection and defending other’s rights,
avert harm from taking place, eliminate conditions causing harm, assist disable individual and
rescue from harm. The other principle suitable for the situation is justice. This obliges
individuals to distribute benefits in an equitable manner. The principal supports justice in equal
sharing based on the need, effort, contribution and merit (Peters, 2015). The principles of respect
for autonomy was not taken since it obliges people to respect decisions and also nonmaleficence
as it stipulates the obligation of not harming others which are not related to the situation at hand
((Brand & McEwen, 2016).
The educator considered the rights of the child first prior to any other thing. That is why
the principle of beneficence was applied because it suggests that action undertaken must be for
the benefit of others. The benefitting person was that child since as per the ACECQA (2013)
standards; a child has the right to be given sleep and rest at the institution. The principle of
justice was as well applied. This is because the principle obliges an individual to distribute
benefits in an equitable manner. In this scenario, the educator considered the child, the institution
and himself. In order to serve the benefits of all parties, the child had to be given the right to
sleep and rest in order for the other two parties avoids risking a fine of $1000 (NSW Legislation,
2011).
The Ethical Theories Adopted

ETHICAL DILEMMA 6
The ethical theories adopted are three. The first on is deontology theory. The theory
asserts that individuals ought to stick to the responsibilities as well as tasks assigned when ethics
are in use. It implies that an individual is guided by the laid regulations to carry out an action or a
decision in upholding the duties since the action taken is in tandem with ethical standards. An
individual following this theory produces decisions that are consistent since they are in line with
the set responsibilities (Shafer-Landau, 2012).
The second theory is utilitarianism. This philosophy is reliant on on the aptitude of
envisaging the consequences of an outcome and that the selection of a choice is such that it
yields the greatest part of the benefit to the people involved. It is in tow dimensions: the rule
utilitarianism and the act utilitarianism. The act utilitarianism is where one undertakes an actor
makes a decision that is going to benefit all the parties involved while disregarding the feelings
or the community constraints-it is apprehensive of fairness. The act utilitarian strives to obtain
the common good; however, there is no consideration of justice, autonomy or beneficence. On
the other hand, rule utilitarianism endeavors to benefit all the parties concerned with the
application of the available means in a just and fair manner. It takes into consideration justice as
well as beneficence. The rule utilitarian compares all types of consequences in order to come up
with an unfavorable decision for all (Hayry, 2013).
The third theory is rights theory. This is a theory based on rights and these are the rights
set by society. These rights are given high regard by the people as they serve to guide all
irrespective of class in society. These rights are taken as ethically correct owing to the fact that
they are validated by an enormous populace. The individuals can as well bestow rights to others
if they have the resources and ability to do so. These rights are made by the people based on the
goals as well as the ethical principles of the society. The only complication of the theory is the

ETHICAL DILEMMA 7
need of a person to read and understand the rights’ characteristics applicable in the society
(Donnelly, 2013)
The three theories were selected because they are all dealing with justice, beneficence,
and rights. The utilitarianism and specifically the rule utilitarianism endeavors to benefit all the
parties concerned with the application of the available means in a just and fair manner-the
decision made to have the child sleep was for the benefit of all, deontology requires that an
individual be guided by the laid regulations to carry out an action or a decision in upholding the
duties since the action taken is in tandem with ethical standards-the care educators applied set
rules to discharge her duties; and rights theory in which there is utilization of the rights set by the
society and in this case the (ACECQA, 2013) standards set to guard children in education
centers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ethical dilemma in education centers and in the wider society requires
great care and concern in handling because it calls an individual to invoke all possible avenues
prior to reaching a conclusion. In the process of dealing with the ethical dilemma, I have learned
that children’s rights are paramount and need to be exercised at all times by all involved.
Additionally, I have learned that professionalism is key is dealing with ethical dilemmas which
are augmented by the application of ethical principles and theories to reach a fair and just
decision.

ETHICAL DILEMMA 8
References
Alderson, P. (2008). Children's Provision Rights. In Young children's rights: Exploring beliefs,
principles and practice (2nd ed., pp. 47-77). London: Open University Press.
Allen, K. (2019). What Is an Ethical Dilemma? Retrieved from:
https://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-articles/What_Is_an_Ethical_Dilem
ma%3F/
Atkinson, M., 2018. The the Rights United of Nations the Child Convention (UNCRC) on.
Justice for Children and Families: A Developmental Perspective, p.50.
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2013). Guide to the
Education and Care Services National Law and the Education and Care Services National
Regulations 2011. Retrieved from http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/National-Quality-
Framework-Resources-Kit/NQF-Resource-02-Guide-to-ECS-Law-Regs.pdf
Brand, B. L., & McEwen, L. (2016). Ethical standards, truths, and lies. Journal of Trauma &
Dissociation, 17(3), 259-266.
Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press.
Hayry, M. (2013). Liberal utilitarianism and applied ethics. Routledge.
Hopkins, M. (2006, March). Duty of care: What do you mean by ‘Duty of Care’. Childcare and
Children’s Health, 9(1). Melbourne: Centre for Community Child Health.
Levy, M. (2011, May 25). Fury as Toddler wanders from child care. The Age. Retrieved from:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/fury-as-toddler-wanders-from-childcare-
centre-20110525-1f3n4.html

ETHICAL DILEMMA 9
Nair, M., Baltag, V., Bose, K., Boschi-Pinto, C., Lambrechts, T., & Mathai, M. (2015).
Improving the quality of health care services for adolescents, globally: a standards-driven
approach. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(3), 288-298.
NSW Legislation, (2011). Education and Care Services National Regulations - NSW Legislation.
Retrieved from: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2011/653
Peters, R. S. (2015). Ethics and Education (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.
Robinson, M. (2005, Spring). Duty of care: Are we liable just because a child is injured at the
centre? Every Child 11(4), p. 24.
Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.). (2012). Ethical theory: an anthology (Vol. 13). John Wiley & Sons.
yourdictionary, (2019). Ethical Dilemma Examples. Retrieved from:
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/ethical-dilemma-examples.html