This was a class assignment, focusing on ethics and the duty of attending to professional codes of conduct. This is supplement data regarding prior post: Person-Environment and Case Management Neglect.
Author: Paul Goree Posted Date: November 14, 2012 4:05 AM Status: Published
The questions I am responding to for this week’s post are: 1.) What guidelines does your profession give you around this idea of “duty to intervene”?
1.) When considering the duty of intervention within the profession of Social Worker, the NASW provides the guidelines by which accepted conduct is to be performed. In section 6.01 of the NASW provides the core of expected duty: “social workers should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels and the development of people, their communities and their environments.” More importantly in regards to intervention, section 6.03 Public Emergencies, states: “Social workers should provide appropriate profession services in public emergencies to the greatest extent possible.” Other aspects of NASW provide the ethical duty of social workers to clients, Section 1: and to the profession itself, in Section 4. (2012, NASW) In general I think the duty of social workers are, positive duties, which are perfect duties, and have a general requirement to them, in that we attend to them on the mere fact that human beings are involved (I would include animals and the environment also).
Merriam-Webster, defines duty as:
something that is done as part of a job. : something that you must do because it is morally right or because the law requires it.
It could be consider that within some professions, a moral obligation is enacted to protect the interest of the profession and prospective clients. However that is hard for me to determine at a total TRUTH, considering unethical decisions of two social services professionals: portrayed in prior post, Person-Environment and Case Management Neglect. Considering a Justice Approach to an ethical circumstance let’s assume possible conditions, whereby a duty can be altered, not attended to or implemented but not enforced or detailed with procedural operational rules.
Off the top of my head, I would state, that there are no condition by which professional code of ethics can be unattended. I want to qualify this to the structure of public institutions, administering public services (mental, health, economical, employment, education, etc.). There may be instances (as history has proven), where by an individual within a society/social setting (macro) avoids, alters, neglects or protest against ethic civil duties or obligations (law). These instances are supported by our American ideology of Liberty, and thus can be subjective as to their occurrence. In these instances coalitions form and ethic civil codes are put to the people for legislations, which is the best thing about Democracy.
However within public institutions, the realm of liberty is limited by the regulations which serve to protect the public. Those regulations become ethical code of conduct by which all professional within that profession accept as part of their career intent. So what would be a fictitious circumstance by which a professional would risk their career by neglecting their professional ethical duty?
Much has been written and expose on corruption and it is a factor by which the minute affects the majority negatively. I honestly would like to believe that within the social service profession, the sincere intent of the endeavor limits the possibility of corruption through the means of neglect. That would be, intentional neglect! Why would a professional social service case manager, intentional neglect a client? Is it a continued instance based upon clients ethnic political factors? Is it sub-interest conflict? Is it politically motivated?
At one time in our history, thoughts and legislation was enacted by which the slaughtering of the American Buffalo resulted. Where those actions ethnically motivated? Some look to the Dawes Act as evidence; while some like, Richard McCormick looked towards civil resolutions (H.R. 157). I could consider professional neglect as being similar to latent motives of the Dawes Act. Or I could consider those professional neglected codes to be motivation, resulting in actions pursued by R.McCormick. So until a motive is established. I will continue to follow through with this blog: Person – Environment: Case Worker Neglect. When individuals protest and break legal civil codes, their intent and actions more likely than not, result in revised legislation ( 18th amendment/ 21st amendment). When professional social service persons violate ethical codes of conduct, their intended actions could result in negative social factors that propel rioting. Example social gentrification.
Paulgoree's Weblog 