Luckily, there is a great deal that can be done to fix the ethical and practical problems created by this initial decision. A quick examination and presentation of other nearby programs and meeting times that allows Lizzy to choose one that will best allow her to attend regularly without disrupting work and family obligations. An apology from Tammy regarding her initial hastiness would also go a long way in repairing the relationship between she and Lizzy.
The primary negative effect here is for Lizzy and her family; not only does Tammy's selection of a meting for her eliminate her ability to choose, but it also sets her up for failure. Tammy's insistence that this is the meeting she must attend could be interpreted to mean that if attendance at this meeting is missed or is generally impractical, attendance at any meeting or program is essentially worthless. This could make Lizzy less willing to work on her issues, and this would then reflect poorly on Tammy and the agencies ability to effectively help the clients they are given by the courts and the overall system.
Case 3
During her employment as a secretary for a law firm, Kim is required to handle documents pertaining to a suit being brought b by her firm against ABC agency for providing poor care of the elderly at their aftercare facilities. Heidi, Kim's sister, is a social worker at the ABC agency, and Kim sometimes shares information regarding the lawsuit with her. The suit involves a large amount of money, and the information is presumably sensitive.
Both Heidi and Kim are engaging in direct and egregious ethical breaches in this sharing of information. In this instance, Kim is actually behaving worse, as she is in a position to recuse herself from handling documents pertaining to this suit. Her law firm no doubt handles other cases, and an...
If the suit were unfounded and being brought merely ought of greed for a perceived public agency with deep pockets, Kim's behavior might be seen as a type of vigilantism. Even then, however, the true ethical decision would be to act as a whistleblower; this type of subterfuge could cost her job just as easily, and does nothing to directly address such issues (if they exist). If the suit is legitimate, then Heidi needs to be aware of this through the proper ethical performance of her own occupation duties, and not through her sister's unethical information.
In this situation, Heidi needs to refuse any future information that Kim attempts to present her. If the suit is legitimate, she also needs to act as a whistleblower and/or reformer within the ABC agency to address the issues that led to the lawsuit. If the suit is not legitimate, than Heidi should be capable of aiding her agency in presenting the facts of the care they provide to their elderly clients. Depending on the type of information Heidi had received, it might be appropriate for her toe make the law firm aware of her receipt of this information, possibly anonymously, with or without revealing the source of her information.
The positive consequences are clear form the facts of the case; ABC agency will be more able to effectively combat the lawsuit with early inside knowledge, whether it is legitimate or not. This could lead to continuing poor care, however, and does other damage to the integrity of Heidi, Kim, and the ABC agency.
