Ethics In Human Services: Models, Principles, And Dilemmas

Introduction to Ethics in Human Services

Ethics or moral philosophy is s a branch of philosophy that deals with putting down systems and recommending what is right and what is wrong in the different instance. It deals with the responsibilities, the human behavior and what people will do under different circumstances.

In whatever people are involved in they are bound to be controlled by the rules of right or wrong and this specifically determines how they tend to deal with different situations. Human services professionals are not set apart from the consequences of their actions. Human services professionals for instance, among many other professionals, are bound to find themselves in instances that require that the ethical decision making. Instances such as those requiring mercy killing or euthanasia, or when the line between life and death is thin or those that require a rapid response- are classical examples. However, that is bound to morals and rules that define what should be done and how it should be done.

The process of decision making in itself entails coming up with alternatives and choosing the best alternative among these. There are several models that have been developed to illustrate the ethical decision-making process. These models are divided into normative, descriptive and prospective models. The normative models ate toes models in which emphasize or elicit the ways and means by which the decision makers should do their activities in the decision making the process so as to achieve the ultimate conclusion. On the other hand, the descriptive models are angled upon empirical evidence in line with how decision makers actually perform the stated activities in the process of decision making. The perspective models, on the other hand, tend to consider empirical evidence in an attempt to help the ethical decision maker make a decision depending on the complexity of the particular situation.

Ethical decision models are influenced by a variety of factors in the current society. The decision-making process has been influenced by a variety of factors that include: an increasingly technological society; the changing fabric of our society; the increase of knowledge and the proportion of resources that are allocated for human services.

One of the ethical decision-making models is the issue-contingent models by Jones (1991). This model asserts that ethical decisions must have moral intensity for it to be appropriate. Moral intensity is a combination of various factors that include: the magnitude of the consequences; social consensus; the probability of the effect; the temporal immediacy; the proximity and the concertation of effect.

Models of Ethical Decision Making

The magnitude of consequences is basically defined as the total harm or benefit that comes into play from a specific moral action that is identified. Social consensus, on the other hand, is defined as the level of comparison or agreement that an alternative already presented is either evil or is good notwithstanding. The probability of effect conversely describes the probability that the action will actually take place and will lead to harm or will provide expected benefits. Temporal immediacy is described as the time present between the actual action and the consequences of the moral actions identified. Proximity describes the feeling of closeness or togetherness that the moral agent encompasses for the victims or the beneficiaries of the intended action. In conclusion, the concentration of effect basically defines the inverse function of the individuals who are affected by the moral act.

The model proposed by Jones can be applied to present-day human activities in many ways. When one is making a decision that the human service provider such as a psychologist can define whether a situation requires a specific moral intensity. The psychologist can then make judgments based on the moral intensity that accompanies the situation. The judgments made will be appropriate in creating distinctions between situations and to avoid the existence of bias.  This model is very effective as a descriptive model in dealing with client needs as it deals with client depending upon the particular identified feasible need. It is, however, important to note that the decision may result in unintended consequences.

Philosopher John Stuart Mill came up with the theological model or theory. Teology basically describes that the value of a situation should be determined by the consequences that it exhibits. Therefore, the outcome or result of an action in itself is not the action itself, it is the way or criterion for identifying the goodness of that action.

The principle of utility is a basic epitome or concept of teleology. Utility in itself states that an act must result in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people involved in a situation. Good in this case defines a positive benefit.

Philosopher Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, came up with the deontology model or theory. Deontology basically describes the theory that considers the intrinsic significance of the act itself as the criterion or way by which its usefulness or good is determined. That simply means that in determining the ethics that encompasses a situation, a person must consider the motives of the actor and not the consequences that accompany the act in question. Deontology comes in conjunction with the virtue theory which describes what a good person would do in the same situation.

Issue-Contingent Models

Kant came up with the concept of the categorical imperative. This concept simply states that one should act only of the action is based on a principle that is universal meaning everyone would act in the same way when faced with a similar situation. It also illuminates that a person should not be treated as a means to achieve an end result. Adherence to this concept poses a great ethical concern especially to a psychologist and other human service providers, who may at times risk the well-being of a client or patient even when it is not in the best interest of the client in question.  Deontology theory is appropriate in my case since it allows me to make decisions without worrying about the client, the intrinsic significance of the act is more considerable than the act itself.

There are versed similarities and differences in which various human services providers adhere to the ethical standards. Psychologists and addiction counselors have different yet diverse ways and means of operating. Both psychologists and addiction counselors are enshrined in the ethical principles. Psychologists and addiction counselor have taken an oath to do no harm to clients (nonmaleficence). The psychologist and addiction counselor in question must identify whether a treatment method can actually cause any unintended harm to the client. The selection of a treatment regimen is based on the rules that it must do the greatest amount of good and reduces the incidences of psychological or bodily harm.

The principle of autonomy is another important point that psychologists and addiction counselor collides in as human service providers. Autonomy basically describes the clients right to free choice. The decision that a client makes about their own health is respected by both psychologist and addiction counselors. However, there are instances where this principle may be overstepped. This is especially in cases where clients are a threat to their own well-being. Psychologists may order that a patient or client is sedated to manage them or prevent harm to self or others. Informed consent may be overstepped in such instances where the life of the client is endangered by their own activities.

Informed consent is seen to pose an ethical dilemma in most cases since there are instances where the client cannot give consent over their own health or wellbeing. Drug addicts or psychiatric patients may be physically or mentally incapable of allowing changes or interferences to their health. This proves a dilemma to both psychologist and addiction counselors. Clients may also refuse to take medication and it may be required that they actually take them.

Dual relationships exist between psychologists and their clients. Drug addiction counselors may also exhibit dual relationships with the patient. Dual relationships are instances in which the client and the medical professionals have more than one existing relationships. However, the psychologists and the drug addiction counselor both have to ensure they delve into maintaining therapeutic relationships and not other romantic relationships. Therapeutic relationships are core to any human service management. However, a dilemma may result if the client and the psychologist or drug addiction counselor actually skip past the line of a therapeutic relationship to a more intimate type of relationship.

Privacy and confidentiality are standards that have to be maintained by every human’s service provider. However, there are cases where privacy may not be maintained, especially when the client has an intention of causing harm to self or others. It may be required that the psychologist disclose this information to significant others- raising an ethical dilemma. A drug addiction counselor may be faced with the same dilemma when a client wants to harm himself or others.

Conclusion

The ethical models, principles, and theories are yet to cover the ethical dilemmas that arise from time to time. A lot needs to be done in the field of research to identify better ways and means of dealing with the ethical dilemmas that arise from time to time.

References

Kälvemark, S., Höglund, A. T., Hansson, M. G., Westerholm, P., & Arnetz, B. (2004). Living with conflicts-ethical dilemmas and moral distress in the health care system. Social science & medicine, 58(6), 1075-1084.

Kälvemark, S., Höglund, A. T., Hansson, M. G., Westerholm, P., & Arnetz, B. (2004). Living with conflicts-ethical dilemmas and moral distress in the health care system. Social science & medicine, 58(6), 1075-1084.

Lo, B. (2012). Resolving ethical dilemmas: a guide for clinicians. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Pope, K. S., & Vetter, V. A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. American Psychologist, 47(3), 397.

Rhodes, M. L. (1986). Ethical dilemmas in social work practice.

Raines, M. L. (2000). Ethical decision making in nurses. Relationships among moral reasoning, coping style, and ethics stress. JONA’S healthcare law, ethics and regulation, 2(1), 29-41.