ethical dilemma in social work case study

• The Code of Ethics of Social Workers
• NASW Code of Ethics: Social Workers and Ethical Dilemmas
• Ethical Responsibilities in Social Work
• Social Worker in a Hospital
• Social Media and Social Work Practice
• Ethical Behavior in Therapists and Social Workers
• Family Social Worker Roles
• Ethical Standards in Social Work
• Ethical Dilemma in Medical Practice
• A v Essex County: Law for Social Workers
• Early Childhood Studies: Role of Social Workers
• Wage Ranges for a Healthcare Social Worker
• Managing Ethics Challenges in Social Work Organizations
• How Social Workers Were Impacted by the Coronavirus Pandemic
• The Ethical Principle of Integrity
• Ethical Dilemma of Child Abuse
• Moral and Ethical Rights of Social Workers
• Social Worker’s Personal and Professional Ethics
• Social Worker Roles of Researcher and Mediator
• Ethical Dilemma Involving a Social Worker
• Social Workers’ Roles: Technology Tools
• Early Childhood Education Center’s Ethical Dilemma
• Ethical Dilemma in the Psychologists Career
• Issues of the First Interview Between Social Worker and Family
• Ethical Dilemma: Parental Notification

Ethical Dilemmas in Social Workers’ Practice Case Study

Ethical dilemma, ethical decision, viable courses of action, reference list.

Ethical dilemmas are a common occurrence in social workers’ practice. The involvement of numerous stakeholders with different interests, values and goals often creates situations that demand resolution of complex decision-making processes. The current paper examines the case of Fern, a 17-year-old Chinese girl with developmental delays and a complicated health condition who requires the services of professional clinicians in order to ensure an adequate level of welfare.

Since Fern cannot make decisions, her parents have decided to terminate hospitalisation and take Fern home for cultural reasons. In order to resolve the emerging dilemma, it is necessary to identify the involved stakeholders, model two possible courses of events, evaluate the implications of each and come to a conclusion regarding the preferential option using an ethical decision-making framework.

A situation can be considered an ethical dilemma when several possible solutions to the problem are valid and relevant but mutually exclusive, with no evident advantage to any of them (Weber & Pockett 2011). In this case, Fern, who is both non-verbal and suffering from Proteus syndrome (a rare condition of tissue overgrowth) requires constant and exhaustive medical care that is difficult to provide at home. Her previous developmental and family history indicates benefits received from hospitalisation as well as some evidence of difficulties experienced by the parents in their attempts to provide adequate care at home.

A recent review of the child’s condition identified an increasing need for hospitalisation. However, during a conference organised to update the care plan, the parents expressed a reluctance to comply with the scenario recommended by the medical experts and stated their intention to take their daughter home, citing cultural reasons. Since Fern is unable to make decisions due to developmental delays, there is an apparent conflict of interest that clearly involves her well-being and presents no obvious solution.

Questions Raised

Both suggested courses of action pose several potentially hazardous outcomes for Fern. In hospital, the girl would receive a superior level of care that is either difficult or impossible to deliver in the home setting. In addition, the financial and socioeconomic condition of Fern’s family creates additional challenges, such as an inadequate and restrictive environment. However, this decision would also go against the desires of her parents, a serious violation in both legal and medical terms. In addition, continued hospitalisation may disrupt the girl’s cultural environment, which may have an adverse effect on her overall well-being. On the other hand, allowing her parents to take their daughter home is plausible, considering their right to make decisions for their child, but this course creates numerous health risks.

It is also worth acknowledging that besides Fern, other players may be affected by the decision. Most evidently, it will impact her family. In addition, the cultural environment may be compromised.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that legal support in favour of each possible outcome can be found in numerous laws and regulations, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, family law, and the AASW code of ethics.

Affected Individuals, Groups and Organisations

The complete list of the possibly affected parties is as follows:

• Fern. As explained above, she may experience health and cultural risks depending on the decision.
• Fern’s family. One of the possible alternatives compromises their rights and threatens their cultural integrity.
• Involved care providers (e.g. hospital staff). These may experience indirect negative effects depending on the aftermath of the event.
• Social worker. As a person responsible for the right decision, a social worker will be held accountable once the adverse effects become apparent.

Human Rights Law

As mentioned above, numerous laws and regulations can be identified as relevant for the decision at hand. From a human rights perspective, two documents can be identified as directly related to the ethical side of the question. First, according to Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, any action undertaken by external parties that concerns children should aim at “the best interests of the child” (United Nations 1990).

Naturally, it thus becomes necessary to define what is considered “best” in Fern’s situation. According to Article 23, the criteria for a decent life include dignity, the possibility of self-reliance and an opportunity for active participation in the community (United Nations 1990). These criteria align with the cultural and social implications. At the same time, Article 24 states the necessity to recognise the right of the child for the “highest attainable standard of health” and demands from States Parties to ensure that this right is maintained at all times (United Nations 1990).

For the reasons mentioned above, this standard of health is clearly unattainable through the involvement of Fern’s parents alone and requires intervention by an external party. However, Article 18 of the same document prioritises the parents’ responsibility for the child’s development, thus granting them significant influence in the decision-making process. This is especially relevant in the case of Fern, whose developmental delays impair her capacity for decision-making (United Nations 1990).

Section 8 of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 further emphasises the possibility of human beings to enjoy their rights (AustLII 2014). Furthermore, section 14 clarifies that people can make decisions based on their beliefs, and section 15 emphasises the right to freedom of expression regardless of the possible reactions of peers (AustLII 2014). Finally, section 19 of the Act guarantees the right to enjoy culture regardless of the cultural and religious beliefs held (AustLII 2014). As can be seen, both documents addressing human rights contain statements in favour of the intentions stated by Fern’s parents, while only one of the highlighted points explicitly and unambiguously refers to the need for decent healthcare as implied by the alternative course of action.

Legislation

The local laws contain clear definitions relevant to the case. Most importantly, section 3 of the Children, Youth and Family Act (2005) unambiguously defines parents as the father and mother of the child (Victoria State Government 2017). In addition, subdivision E of division 6 further clarifies the age of the individual in question, identifying it as a person who is under 18 (Victoria State Government 2017). Therefore, referring to the involved stakeholders as “child” (since Fern is 17) and “parents” is appropriate from a legal standpoint.

Next, it would be necessary to eliminate misinterpretation of the parental responsibility codified by Article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, cited above. According to section 61B of the Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975, parental responsibility is any duty, power or responsibility imposed on parents by law in relation to their children (AustLII 2016). At the same time, section 61C of the same document firmly establishes the range of responsibilities as those between parents and children under 18 years of age (AustLII 2016).

From the perspective of a social worker, I would emphasise this point to clarify possible misinterpretation of the term “responsibility” as the ability to determine the outcome of the dilemma without proper acknowledgement of the possible health consequences for the child. This point can be further solidified using the definition of major long-term effects from the same section, which specifically mentions care and health as areas of proper development and welfare (AustLII 2016). Finally, according to section 60 CC, the criteria for determining a child’s best interests include physical harm resulting from neglect (AustLII 2016).

Since this definition coincides with the possibility of harm caused by the decision to withdraw Fern from the hospital, I would emphasise these points to ensure that the parents understand them as part of their responsibility.

Social Work Principles

The AASW Code of Ethics provides several guidelines that should be considered in the process of finding an acceptable solution. On the one hand, section 3.1 prioritises respect for persons provided through humane service and avoidance of harming anyone (AASW 2010). These criteria can be interpreted both in favour of the parents’ and care providers’ positions. On the other hand, section 4 specifically warns against the possibility of conflict between the values and principles suggested by the code and legal and organisational requirements, unambiguously stating that in such situations, the social worker must act “in accordance with the law and with organisational directives” (AASW 2010).

It is thus necessary to define the areas of the Code that potentially conflict with the interests of the stakeholders involved in the case. Section 5.1.2 (b) of the Code lists culture, world views, values and desires among the areas that fall within the range of responsibilities necessary for ethical practice (AASW 2010). Additionally, section 5.1.7 prioritises clients’ interests in the case of conflicting interests, although “due consideration for the respective interests of others” is advised (AASW 2010).

This situation is further elaborated in section 5.2.1 (b), which acknowledges the possibility of an exceptional situation where legal requirements and conditions or interests of other parties may outweigh the clients’ interests (AASW 2010). Finally, in a scenario where clients have limited decision-making capacity, a social worker is to safeguard their interests (AASW 2010).

In this particular case, it will be necessary for me to ensure that Fern’s parents understand the consequences of their decision to withdraw her from the hospital and to achieve the best outcome for their child. I would also need to minimise the barrier to her self-determination posed by her disability and possibly her parents’ cultural background, as required by section 5.2.2 of the Code (AASW 2010). Finally, challenging procedures that are not in the best interests of clients also falls within the responsibilities of social workers, as stated in section 5.4.2 (AASW 2010).

Ethical Theories

Depending on the preferred ethical theory, the social worker could handle the procedure in different ways, reaching different conclusions.

According to deontological theory, human decisions are based on unconditional universal directives known as categorical imperatives (McAuliffe 2014). In this particular case, it is possible to imagine that I as a social worker would hold a firm belief that Fern’s parents have the ultimate right to bring her up at home regardless of possible risks, in which case I would support the parents’ decision. Alternatively, I could hold the belief that a child’s health is an ultimate value, which would also eliminate all doubts. Regardless of the preferred imperative, the deontological approach would make the choice more straightforward but less justified by the context of the case.

The utilitarian approach offers both a more flexible and a more encompassing view of the issue. According to its best-recognised definition, it aims at providing the greatest good for the greatest number (McAuliffe 2014). In our case, this could be interpreted as an attempt to acknowledge the interests of as many stakeholders as possible. However, both the legislative and the ethical implications detailed above clearly do not allow this possibility.

In other words, regardless of the interests of the clinicians, Fern’s well-being will remain my only priority. However, the utilitarian approach would allow me to determine the course of action that offers the greatest capacity to ensure the said well-being by considering the likely consequences of each alternative. For instance, while the parents’ decision to withdraw her from the hospital and take her home may not provide the necessary level of well-being, it aligns well with many provisions ensuring cultural integrity. In this case, it would be necessary to outline and weigh the possible outcomes and thus select an alternative associated with fewer undesirable consequences.

The utilitarian approach also opens up the possibility to detect mitigation of adverse effects generated by the decision. For example, if the cultural damage resulting from hospital care is considered significant, it would be rational to consider the opportunity of arranging a home-care program to mitigate the effect. As can be seen from the information above, the utilitarian approach offers a more comprehensive and inclusive view of the problem and minimises the possibility of adverse effects by acknowledging as many external factors as possible. Understandably, it also requires more time and effort, although the responsibility placed on me as a social worker justifies this difference.

Hospital Policies

The professional boundaries of the Royal Children’s Hospital acknowledge the possibility that the delivery of care might involve the need to understand the cultural background of the patient (or, due to Fern’s inability to make decisions, that of her parents). Besides, patients’ rights include the possibility to refuse treatment and receive a proper explanation of the possible consequences of such a decision (Royal Children’s Hospital n.d.). However, the focal point of the policy is to provide the best possible care to the patient, which cannot be interpreted solely from the perspective of cultural expectations. In Fern’s case, it is also important to factor in her deteriorating physical condition and the suitability of the environment (in contrast to the conditions in her home).

The Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights offers a similar approach by guaranteeing the possibility of service that respects the recipient’s culture and emphasises the right for inclusion in decisions of both the patients and their parents, with the latter having greater significance, considering Fern’s inability to express herself and make decisions (Royal Children’s Hospital 2013). Thus, the policies of both organisations provide the possibility for the girl’s parents to refuse hospital care and take their daughter home – under the condition that this decision could be considered the best possible option. Therefore, as a hospital social worker, I would need to provide them with the best evidence of the benefits of hospital care and help them evaluate the possible shortcomings of their preferred variant.

Return Home

Since Fern is unable to express herself and decide on the preferred course of action, her parents would be chiefly responsible for the outcome. One of the most evident options is to support the parents’ decision to take Fern home and allow them to take care of her themselves. This option has several advantages. First, the parents in this case essentially represent the client’s interests, and thus, their opinion is to be reckoned with.

In addition, the claimed cultural justification of the decision may be crucial for Fern’s well-being, both to maintain her rights and to ensure the desired cultural and social environment. On the other hand, several risks are associated with this option. First, the home setting severely limits the quality and immediacy of care as no professional medical professionals could provide constant monitoring of her condition.

Besides, as was stated in the case, the house has several physical limitations, such as narrow passages, which would significantly complicate matters. Next, it would be reasonable to assume that new responsibilities would put additional pressure on Fern’s parents and further disrupt their socioeconomic condition. There is evidence that their previous attempts were associated with serious physical strain, and it is likely that such strain will increase as Fern’s condition progresses. Finally, the case makes it clear that the girl’s state improved dramatically after she was hospitalised in the past. In other words, the introduction of professional caregivers yielded observable positive results. Again, Fern’s deteriorating condition suggests that the difference will be even more dramatic in the current situation, with her increased need for specialised medical care.

Stay in Hospital

The second possible course of action is to recommend Fern stay in hospital despite her parents’ stated intention. This option has several notable advantages. First, it would provide Fern with 24-hour access to professional medical care. Her health condition would be appropriately monitored, and necessary measures would be taken in the case undesirable developments are detected. Additionally, a hospital is a more logistically suitable environment for Fern considering her current inability to move freely.

In other words, it will ensure that the client’s best interests are preserved (unless her parents present convincing arguments to the contrary), which is consistent with Fern’s rights as a human being, the Commonwealth Family Law Act that prioritises the role of the child’s health and the policies of the hospital that emphasise the delivery of the best care to the patient. Finally, this decision is consistent with the AASW Code of Ethics, which requires safeguarding the client’s rights and interests.

The greatest disadvantage is the inability to satisfy the cultural expectations of the parents, which may potentially undermine the girl’s well-being (although no convincing evidence exists in favour of this assumption). In addition, the possibility remains that the cultural background of which Fern will be deprived could play an important part in her development as an individual.

Potential Conflicts

I can foresee minor difficulties arising from a conflict between my personal values and the legal and ethical considerations described above. While I certainly respect the human right to enjoy culture, I believe that in a situation where health risks are apparent, cultural considerations are to be carefully weighed before bringing them up in the decision-making process. Besides, in my opinion, the evidence presented in the case suggests that the overall well-being of Fern is more likely attainable through the availability of care provided by hospital professionals. Thus, to me, it is not immediately obvious what value her parents’ values might have for her in her current state.

This outlook comes in conflict not only with her family’s expectations but also with numerous parts of the human rights documents identified in the previous section that emphasise the necessity to recognise cultural background as well as hospital policies that allow refusing care. Finally, it is possible that in this situation, hospital management will be concerned with the possible consequences of not acknowledging the cultural background of the patient’s family, which would present additional difficulties.

Considering the information above, I find the second alternative – allowing Fern to stay in hospital – the more viable option. I consider it to be difficult to achieve since Fern cannot express herself, which means that her parents’ decision would take priority. Nevertheless, I would point to the fact that health is an essential component of the child’s well-being and explain the restrictions and difficulties that would surface after Fern is taken home. In other words, their decision to withdraw her from the hospital would not be in the best interests of Fern, which would be inconsistent with section 60 CC of the Family Law Act, Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.7 of the AASW Code of Ethics.

In addition, I would be required to refer the case to the child protection service as demanded by section 4 of the Code. Finally, I could try arranging scheduled meetings with her family to avoid disrupting cultural integrity. This decision is also consistent with the utilitarian ethical theory since it acknowledges the net effect of the factors at hand instead of capitalising on non-conditional values. Overall, I consider the described course of action ethically appropriate.

AASW 2010, Code of ethics . Web.

AustLII 2014, Charter of human rights and responsibilities act 2006 . Web.

AustLII 2016, Family law act 1975 . Web.

McAuliffe, D 2014, Interprofessional ethics: collaboration in the social, health and human services, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Royal Children’s Hospital 2013, The Australian charter of healthcare rights . Web.

Royal Children’s Hospital n.d., Patient rights responsibilities . Web.

United Nations 1990, Convention on the rights of the child . Web.

Victoria State Government 2017, Children, youth and families act 2005 . Web.

Weber, Z & Pockett, R 2011, ‘Professional values and ethical practice’, in A O’Hara & R Pockett (eds.), Skills for human service practice: working with individuals, groups and communities , Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 20-42.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, July 30). Ethical Dilemmas in Social Workers' Practice. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemmas-in-social-workers-practice/

"Ethical Dilemmas in Social Workers' Practice." IvyPanda , 30 July 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemmas-in-social-workers-practice/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Ethical Dilemmas in Social Workers' Practice'. 30 July.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Ethical Dilemmas in Social Workers' Practice." July 30, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemmas-in-social-workers-practice/.

1. IvyPanda . "Ethical Dilemmas in Social Workers' Practice." July 30, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemmas-in-social-workers-practice/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Ethical Dilemmas in Social Workers' Practice." July 30, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemmas-in-social-workers-practice/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Best Social Work Degrees & Career Options

EXAMPLES OF ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN SOCIAL WORK IN THE UNITED STATES

There are many ethical considerations in social work, The most common Social Work ethical dilemmas include confidentiality, moral dilemmas, and client requests for independence. When clients’ actions mirror their intentions, an ethical dilemma will rarely present itself in the social work context. Someone who blatantly abuses their family members without remorse, for example, will be quickly reported by a social worker without much internal conflict on the reporter’s part. When a well-intentioned client makes a misguided decision, however, as part of the effort to improve their situation based on the social worker’s advice, an ethical conflict can occur.

Especially when mental health and addictive tendencies, social workers are very conscious of the fragility of recovery for their clients. For this reason, they may feel compelled to stay silent when a well-meaning client crosses an ethical boundary. To skillfully navigate this recurring issue, social workers must first recognize the most common forms of ethical problems in their field. Then, they can establish a method for gently guiding clients to a more productive course of action in a way that minimizes impact on morale.

Confidentiality

Social workers are of course bound to confidentiality, meaning they cannot discuss client business with anyone else. Like healthcare providers and HIPAA, this is a very serious matter that people lose their jobs over, even in the case of accidental breaches. Deciding when to break confidentiality is one of the most common ethical issues in social work.

There is only one scenario that justifies a breach of confidentiality, and reasonably so. It is in the case of unlawful and harmful acts . If a client tells you that they are hurting themselves, hurting anyone else, or being hurt by someone else, that’s grounds for the release of private information.

When social workers are in school, this may seem like a relatively straightforward requirement, but they often feel very conflicted when they first encounter it in the field. If a case is blatant, as mentioned, as with severe harm or abuse, then the reporter is not so conflicted. If a client shows up to a session with a small bruise that is consistent with abusive handling, however, and they insist strongly that they aren’t being abused, the social worker may struggle ethically – especially if the spousal or parental relationship is fragile enough to be damaged by an investigation.

The best way to resolve this dilemma – or at least make it easier – is to pre-empt it. At the start of a social worker’s relationship with a client, the social worker should disclaim to the client that all information is private except for reports of self-harm, harm to others. This will help to preserve trust, even in the case of a report. In either case, social workers should always remember their state’s NASW guidelines (Connecticut linked as an example). These guidelines help outline the circumstances required for a mandated report.

Client Requests for Independent Living

This issue most prominently affects clients with mental health and behavioral concerns. When a client with mental health ethical dilemmas requests their own housing, the social worker may feel conflicted. They want to encourage the client’s self-sufficiency.

However, they aren’t entirely sure if the client is prepared to make that transition, especially since the client has been in an inpatient environment for a significant amount of time. Similarly, a social worker may be hesitant to place a client with severe depression and suicidal tendencies in their own home.

The more assessment data a social worker can obtain, the more evidence and confidence they will have to reinforce their ultimate decision. Assessment data varies per client, but the following can act as a very general framework in most cases:

• What services does the client currently need throughout the day?
• What services will they have access to if they move to this home/apartment?
• How long has it been since the client lived on their own?
• What is the client’s current level and quality of social interaction with fellow tenants/caregivers?
• What do the client’s family members say about his or her independence level before community/institutionalized living?

Assessment is critical in this event, as it will lessen the social worker’s hesitation in making a decision either way. Even if a social worker decides not to endorse a client’s appeal for independent housing based on this data, they can use it to create an action plan for the client so they can strive to make the transition in the future.

Moral Dilemmas

Moral and religious qualms are complex ethical issues in human services and the social work environment. If a client is seeks assistance in having an abortion, for example, and their social worker is firmly against abortion in general, a moral conflict may affect that case. On the other hand, a social worker may refer a client to healthcare or mental health specialists who practice treatments that violate certain religious beliefs (drawing blood or taking certain medications, for example).

In the first scenario, the social worker needs to prioritize the client’s welfare over their own beliefs. It is an abuse of a social worker’s oversight to deny or discourage abortion on any grounds not related to the patient’s functional needs.

Social workers can prevent the second scenario with a mindful approach to intervention planning. A social worker may have has never worked with someone of a certain religious or moral ideology. However, they can still prevent problems by simply asking everyone what they’re comfortable with prior to recommending certain services.

The Self-Determination vs Security Paradox

Encouraging self-determination is usually high on the list of a social worker’s objectives for any given client, but the freedom to direct oneself is fundamentally related to a greater risk of harm. Consider the post-9/11 crackdown on airport security, to illustrate a much broader case. Before 9/11, passengers had much more freedom to bring certain items onboard airplanes. But, authorities restrict freedom for security.

The social worker must promote a sensible balance between autonomy and security for clients. Additionally, they should establish this precedent early on in the relationship. If a client wants to appeal for custody of their children, for example, but has not taken sufficient strides to remedy their substance abuse and behavioral problems as mandated by the court. It’s the social worker’s job to shift the focus towards these critical steps before jumping back into the legal process.

It’s important when guiding a client to a safer and less autonomous choice, the social worker clearly and reasonably justifies their decision, always prioritizing the clients:

• Safety and well-being
• Legal standing
• Motivation to continue their efforts
• Promises to family and friends
• Self-established goals

Sometimes, social workers need to encourage clients to be self-reliant. Instead of recommending a particular course of action for hesitant clients, it’s more important to the client’s self-reliance to keep the conversation open-ended so that they can choose (within defined parameters). “What do you think we should do?” or “Which of these options sounds best to you?”

Dual Relationships

When a social worker and client interface outside of their professional relationship, it is a dual relationship . Especially in the era of social media, this issue is very confusing for social workers across the country.

Sometimes, after a social worker and client finish working with each other, the client or a family member may reach out to thank the social worker. In many of these cases, nothing unethical occurs. Similarly, if a social worker encounters a former client in the community, there’s nothing wrong with polite conversation.

Professional relationships that turn into sexual relationships are a violation of the National Association of Social Workers’ Code of Ethics. This is example is straightforward, but what about a hug? What if a former spouse or partner seeks counsel from a social worker? Many of these cases exist in the “gray area” as far as state guidelines are concerned.

So, social workers should familiarize themselves with the hard boundaries. As always, the more informed a social worker is on appropriate behavior, the less conflicted they will have.

What is Social Work?

Social work is a profession that is practice-based and promotes social change to happen for people and communities. It also promotes the development, empowerment, and cohesion of people and entire communities. The practice of social work encompasses the understanding of human development as well as human behavior. S

ocial work practice also involves the social, economic, and cultural interactions between people and communities and the institutions that guide those. Professionals in the social work field work with families and institutions in a variety of areas. Some of those areas include:

• Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention
• Civil Rights
• Addiction and Treatment
• Unemployment Benefits
• Disability Pay
• Workers’ Compensation
• Reduced Mental Health Stigma
• Medicaid and Medicare

There are three different levels of social work. When it comes to micro-social work, social workers are able to provide one-on-one assistance to individuals, families, and small groups. They work with people who are facing ethical dilemmas, such as mental health or substance abuse.

Mezzo social work encompasses an area of social work in which social workers are able to help groups of people, such as students at schools, patients and hospitals, or inmates in prison. For example, a social worker at a prison may help inmates with their substance abuse recovery while they are incarcerated.

Macro social work refers to the policy-making area of social work along with research and community-based initiatives. Social workers at this level of practice will be focused on addressing societal ethical dilemmas, such as housing, substance abuse, and homelessness.

What is the Social Worker Code of Ethics?

The Social Worker Code of Ethics is a set of standards provided by the National Associate of Social Workers that helps guide the professional conduct of social workers.

• Preamble: The first section is referred to as the preamble and it summarizes the social work profession’s mission and its core values.
• Purpose of the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics: The second section is the purpose of the National Association of Social Work Code of Ethics, which provides the main functions of the code of ethics. It also includes a brief guide for social workers dealing with ethical dilemmas or dilemmas in the field of social work.
• Ethical Principles: The third section is the ethical principles the social worker should follow. These principles are based on social work’s core values that guide the practice of social work.
• Ethical Standards: the last section of the social work code of ethics addresses the ethical standards for social workers. This includes the ethical standards that guide the conduct of social workers and provide a basis for adjudication to be determined.

What Are some Examples of NASW Ethical Dilemmas?

• Social Workers Ethical Responsibilities to Clients are to maintain professional relationships
• Social Workers Ethical Responsibilities to Colleagues
• Social Workers Ethical Responsibilities in Practice Settings
• Social Workers Ethical Responsibilities as Professionals
• Social Workers Ethical Responsibilities to the Social Work Profession
• Social Workers Ethical Responsibilities to the Broader Society include social justice

Social workers are expected to adhere to this code of ethics in their day-to-day interactions with their clients and the communities in which they serve. This is important for both the social worker and his or her clients to practice ethical decision making.

Related Articles:

• 5 Best Films and Documentaries About Social Work
• How Do Social Workers Use Task-Centered Practice?
• What Risks Do Social Workers Take?
• What Are Different Types of Community-Based Interventions?
• 25 Best Online LCSW Programs