PLAGIARISM FREE WRITING SERVICE
We accept
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE
100%
QUALITY

Ethics And Values

Ethical dilemma

The ethical issue I'll discuss will be based on some fact of a meeting that happened as i was a support employee five years ago in a mental health trust company. The patient will be referred to as female A' and members of the multidisciplinary team will be known as professionals. A very brief description of the girls mental health health issues was schizophrenia this may have an effect on a person's brain in such a way they can notice voices and send smells that aren't real to the eye. Other features can include delusional thoughts that's where the individual can assume that certain situations and circumstances have took place to them which is clear to the individual on the contrary it can make a person believe that others do not imagine them (CAMHS, 2002).

The moral dilemma

  • Girl A' was 15 years of age, when she was sectioned under the 1983 Mental Health Action section 2.
  • Girl A' received a letter from a pal at home. This letter revealed that her good friend had been raped from woman A's' mother's boyfriend.
  • Girl A' experienced prior to the letter disclosed to the medical team that she herself had been raped from her mother's partner. She didn't take action for concern with losing the partnership she had just lately developed with her mom. At the moment the girl wanted her mother to never find out about the disclosure of this rape ordeal.
  • The friend informed girl A' that this situation would court.
  • At this aspect girl A' chosen it was time to put closure on her behalf own rape ordeal and therefore wanted to go to court docket and declare her own rape ordeal.
  • The ethical issue - is should the female called go to court docket or not?

Reference - Reading from Leathard, A. & McLaren. (2007) Ethics contemporary challenges in health insurance and social health care. The Insurance plan Press: UK.

There are three more solutions which often conflict with many ethical problems these are deontology, conceptualism and virtue ethics (Leathard & McLaren, 2007). It approaches can give directions to moral dilemmas.

Consequentialism -also known as utiliarism found out by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The seeks of this procedure are consider the results of going for a particular form of action (ibid). Every area of an ethical dilemma using this approach would get equal weight when contemplating the results (ibid). In healthcare this approach can be seen to be used when contemplating decisions that require to be made about the allocation of resources (ibid).

Personal Values my personal values

You will illustrate your worth but there is absolutely no right/wrong response to this. It really is basically the method that you presented your issue to the ethic group |Julie.

How does my own knowledge, culture, and life experience impact this dilemma for you?

feelings

What worth are incompatible and exactly how has this made you are feeling?

What were your concerns?

Given similar circumstances with someone else would the outcome be the same?

how do these effect on the questions you asked

resp. if you ask me as a person

PROCESS

  1. How and why am I making a choice I am making i. e. , what did I believe, feel, and what performed I do or not do?
  2. How was my decision making affective with what factors of legislation, criteria, plans and organisational procedures/procedures and values?
  3. What other resources would be helpful to me in making the decisions about the dilemma?
  4. Keep using reflection I think this part Julie is where you have started to described different ethical methods.

Deontology - deon means responsibility and ology is the research, this process was uncovered by Kantian. The seeks of this way will not consider the results rather it functions on what's morally right, specifically deontologists treat the problem or client with admiration for personality which is its greatest importance. This approach wouldn't normally approve of sharing with lies to a customer even if it is at the best interest. Any decision is made using deontology would have to be based on fact. Duty based theories which would allow the worker and your client to works of the greatest results which would avoid harm. This approach recognises autonomy, trust and the collateral of provisions (ibid).

Virtue - derived from Aristotelian ideologies. Thomas Aquinas (1990) defines virtue ethics isn't only knowledge but also the approach taken up to provide integration using this knowledge for an honest dilemma situation, a location of manifestation of moral professional behavior (ibid: 71). Virtue ethics express a person's personality beliefs and principles quality is within actions that they believe are morally acoustics.

Beauchamp and Childress (1989) illustrate four ethical principles that should be considered when interacting with any moral dilemma they can be: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice (ibid: 72). However these four honest principles at times can conflict therefore critical judgement is necessary when choosing a specific procedure to use. These four ethical principles they provides a framework to assist the worker(s)/client(s) situation by empowering the thinking process, this helps with your choice process of the ethical problem (ibid). In virtuous practitioner must consider different viewpoints by recognising the actual conflicts that can happen between these four ethical principles. It is therefore recommended that a specialist makes critical judgements as to which approach would be more appropriate to the ethical dilemma. Gardiner (2003) remarks that the virtuous specialist is driven by deep want to act well and that this methodology has a flexibility that can encourage innovative solutions while acknowledging that there will often be elements of pain or regret (ibid: 76).

So from the moral issue if beneficence was applied the patient's best interest and wants and feelings could have been considered using this process. Although, it could appear bad for the patient, if the only real views of her situation were considered because this could have had an adverse influence on the best interests of the patient.

Non-maleficence - applying this approach to the ethical dilemma could show the way the professional has secured the individual from genuine or potential harm; this is particularly successful when the specialist evaluates his/her knowledge and skills realistically ensuring any form of intervention is taken of their professional capacity. However should the worker feel there could be limitations then they should seek and reveal this information with the team of professionals caring for the lady? This particular procedure might have been applied from support employee/primary care worker's perspective it is because non-maleficence provides the support employee/primary care employee with an increase of details from the client's perspective of the situation whereas; a professional may only work with the lady on if few situations. Therefore the implications of the support worker/primary care worker not writing information with other professionals can cause great injury to the patient. In case the support employee/primary care employee advises the individual you can find nothing more I can do then this will be hazardous and unhelpful to the individual (ibid: 74).

Autonomy - the basic principle of autonomy and effect on disclosure and confidentiality. However a patient has the right to information about their condition and their situation, the patient's views beliefs and values should be well known. Although, legally the girl in the ethical dilemma was sectioned under the 1983 mental health action section 2 and therefore their grounds a specialist must take in relation to a proper decision this can discord the patient's best interest/wants and feelings. Utilizing the ethical dilemma in this instance shows when beneficence or non-maleficence overruling patient autonomy (ibid: 75). The specialist will endeavour to the first responsibility to the individual however the practitioner must balance this obligation to the patient in regards to to the wider risks and participation of others. Gillon (2003), autonomy is a component of the other three moral guidelines and autonomy should take concern with respect for the individual (ibid).

Justice and equity

The Aristotelian rules claim that I trust system should ensure identical and really should be treated evenly and unequal's unequally (ibid: 77). Considering justice and equity to the honest dilemma the patient may feel the decision to not go to court un-fair. However the specialist should deliver an Albany's about the standards that was used to help make the decisions they made relating to this ethical dilemma. The rules of justice and collateral can allow for decisions to be made and distributed based on the patient's need, merits, capacity or protection under the law. In this situation a practitioner may remind the patient of her protection under the law according to a problems procedure (ibid).

ISSUES

POWER/polices

  1. What are the rights of the child?
  2. What privileges as a person?
  3. Are there any privileges in terms of seeking closure?
  4. All your doing here is answering and showing Why and what insurance policies may be used with this problem.

Julie records for power

every child issues is a Green newspaper that was posted in 2003 by the federal government as a response to the loss of life of Victoria Climbie. In 2000 for the children's function became legislations from an intensive consultation process and it is this legislation that underpins the legalities of each Child Things, by guaranteeing five necessary final results are used when ensuring the health, safety and physical condition of children from birth to 19 years. The five effects are - being healthy, remaining safe, enjoying and getting, making an optimistic contribution and attaining financial well-being (Every Child Issues, 2003 Cited in http://www. dcsf. gov. uk/everychildmatters/about/ on 20/10/09 @ 13:05).

RESP. OF ORG.

What is the organisations point of view?

Ie NHS, CAMHS why do they use them what are the values of the concepts to s/u

Organisations policies

This report places out a new vision for the future of mental health and well-being in Britain. Based on four rules, it describes the priorities we imagine should underpin mental health coverage for another decade.

Our four guidelines for mental health insurance plan are:

  1. Mental health and well-being is everybody's business. It affects every family in Britain and it can only just be better if coordinated, assertive action is considered across Whitehall with all levels of government.
  2. Good mental health retains the main element to an improved quality of life in Britain. We need to promote positive mental health, prevent mental unwell health and intervene early when people become unwell.
  3. People should get as much support to gain a good standard of living and fulfil their potential from mental health services as they be prepared to get from physical healthcare services. Mental healthcare should offer anticipation and support for folks to recover and live their lives independently terms.
  4. We need a new romance between mental health services and those who utilize them. Service users, carers and communities should be offered an active role in shaping the support available to them. With these principles at the heart of insurance policy, we consider we can create a population where good mental health is nurtured and in which mental ill health is managed well.

As a consequence, our mental well-being will be a core concern of federal government. Effective action to promote good mental health will be taken among folks of all age groups and diverse backgrounds. People who experience mental distress will receive well-timed support to live well and also have a good and similar chance to satisfy their potential.

The actions that might be needed to make our eyesight a reality are summarized overleaf.

(Health, 2009)

Organisation/mental health

What is sectioning?

Most patients in hospital wards can't be prevented from going out of when they wish, and their consent must be obtained before treatment is given. The identical pertains to most patients who are in clinic for psychiatric treatment. They don't object to being in hospital or being cared for and are known as casual' or voluntary' patients. However, the Mental Health Work 1983 allows some individuals to be detained in clinic. When this happens, these are called detained' patients and their consent to treatment may no longer be required. This is known to be sectioned'.

Some people are detained in hospital by the courts after being priced with a crime. (See Mind privileges guide 5: mental health insurance and the courts. ) However, many people are detained under the civil areas' of the Mental Health Work, which does not involve a judge whatsoever. This booklet pieces out what must happen before someone can be detained under a civil section, and outlines some of the consequences. Mind rights guides 2-5 describe, in greater detail, other relevant information about consent to treatment and what to do if you are being detained so you want to leave medical center.

What is the procedure for detaining someone under a civil section?

There are two main civil sections of the Mental Health Function 1983, which are being used to detain someone: section 2 and section 3. For every section, three people must concur that the individual needs to be detained. Usually, they would be an Approved Mental DOCTOR (AMHP), a section 12 approved doctor and a signed up physician.

The two doctors must agree the person needs to be in medical center and recommend detention. Then, the AMHP determines if to make application for the individuals compulsory admission to hospital. The Nearest Comparative (NR) (see below) has the right to apply. However, the Mental Health Work Code of Practice helps it be clear an AMHP is the most well-liked applicant and applications by an NR are incredibly rare (the choice for the AMHP as applicant above the NR is re-stated in the new Code of Practice at para 4. 28). No matter where in fact the person is at the time. They might be at home, in clinic, in a place of safeness, or in a law enforcement station following an arrest for an alleged criminal offence.

In an unexpected emergency, someone may be admitted to clinic compulsorily, with only one medical recommendation to support an application (section 4). This is allowed if it is felt the criteria for section 2 (see below) are found, but there is no time to wait for another medical suggestion. The second medical suggestion must be obtained within 72 hours.

It is important to note that people do not need to have committed a criminal offense to be detained under a civil section. Regulations allows anyone to be detained under the procedure described above.

What do the several civil sections mean?

Section 2 permits a person to be detained if they are experiencing a mental disorder and they have to be detained, at least for a limited period, for assessment (or for analysis followed by medical treatment) for his or her own health or safe practices, or for the coverage of other folks.

Detention can keep going for up to 28 days and nights. The section can not be renewed, but you might be assessed before the 28 days expires to see if detention under section 3 is necessary.

Section 3 permits a person to be detained if indeed they have a mental disorder, and it is necessary for their own health or security, or for the protection of other folks, and treatment can't be provided unless they are simply detained in clinic. A patient cannot be detained under this section unless the doctors also concur that appropriate medical treatment is designed for him or her.

Detention can last for six months. The section may then be renewed by half a year, originally, and by per annum at a time, subsequently (Head, 2009).

Other professionals

Alan suggest the Mental Health Act could be one.

What rights does she have under this ACT?

Who was present? Consider their positions, charaters, virtues, worth ect.

why could it be a dilemma

DEONTOLOGY

This is what is meant because of your code of conduct - this is actually the link between philsophy and practice it is through the rules of conduct. You may show the way the philosophy feeds into rules of carry out and then feeds into practice. Alan clarifies this is approximately respect for the person and autonomy. So you need to say A deontology methodology would dispute this. . . . and this approach would be utilized because of this. . . . . .

Alan gives an example of how to apply this to your circumstance: Julie you might argue in one position that deontology is a person in her own right, this does not exist which means duty is to the right of the person this is quite deontological this approach also looks at Law, human protection under the law, that type of thing. Most interpersonal workers are this process All you have to do here is say how and why this approach may be applied to the circumstance and where it come from i. e. , KANT

Consequential/Unitarianism

This is what is meant because of your code of conduct - this is the website link between philsophy and practice it is through the rules of conduct. You are going to show the way the viewpoint feeds into rules of conduct and then feeds into practice. Alan records. A unitarism strategy would claim this. . . . which approach would be utilized as a result of this. . . . Alan exemplory case of how going to this, Consequentialism indicate you look at the effects, if we do not intervene at this point and show some support then this person are affected damage, they could be harmed that is more this process which is the hyperlink I want you to definitely make. Most cultural worker are this process. All your doing here's saying where do this approach come from how and why would it be utilized in your dilemma

virtue ethics

Virtue ethics = the character of the individual, so in the same way that we was arguing with the young boys you could argue your viewpoint with your issue Alan. Questions to ask and answer with these strategies are:

What is the thing that makes one of these valid?

Probably the character of the individual doing the argument! other words you Julie are incredibly dominate and persuading and therefore one needs to ask is your situation genuine? I

s it a valid discussion?

Are you taking it from integrity (honesty, goodness) or serenity (relaxed, serenity, composure, calmness)? All you doing here is saying where this process came from and just why and how would it not be used in this dilemma

These three channels of worth in public work influence our practice and are described as TRADITIONAL (being to the custom way), EMANCIPATORY (to give self-reliance to free someone from something) AND GOVERNANCE (manipulated or overlooked by federal) Prices. How does the GSCC; BASW; and NOS rules of ethics guide your decision and practice outcomes?

social constructionist view

bibliography

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
PLACE AN ORDER
Check the price
for your assignment
FREE