Ethical Dilemmas Case While Walking

Ethical Dilemmas

Case

While walking through her son's school, Kiki calls her supervisor to discuss one of her client's mental illnesses. The supervisor is going on a two-week vacation at the end of the day and will presumably be unreachable (and would certainly want to be unreachable for all but emergency situations). During the cell phone conversation, which takes place in the halls of her son's school, Kiki describes Sheila's mental illness in great detail.

The primary ethical conflict here is the violation of Sheila's right to privacy. There is certainly no dilemma presented by Kiki's discussing this situation with her supervisor; this is the role that the supervisor is meant to play, advising Kiki when she is having difficulty for one reason or another with her clients. As the supervisor is a member of the same organization, there is no ethical issue in the supervisor's knowing the details of Sheila's case. The fact that this conversation has the capability of being overheard by anyone within earshot of Kiki's conversation, however, is a definite violation of ethics.

The degree of the ethical infraction is largely dependent on information not presented in the case. Specifically, much of the ethical damage would be non-existent -- indeed, the entire dilemma could possibly be avoided -- depending on Kiki's use of Sheila's name during the conversation, as well as other details that might make her identity known. If the behavioral patterns were discussed generally and the name not mentioned, there would have been no real ethical conflict; identifying information is the main issue regarding privacy.

There is very little that can be done to undo the ethical damage done by this conversation. It could actually be deemed unethical for Kiki to inform Sheila of this breach of her right to privacy not because of the possible damage to could do to Kiki, her supervisor, and the reputation of the organization as a whole, but because of the damage this revelation could do to Sheila. Knowing that it was possible that complete strangers might know about her problems would only cause greater stress and embarrassment to Sheila, and would not lead to anything productive, therefore Kiki's only real option is to never repeat this behavior.

The positive consequence of this action, then, is that Kiki will likely become more sensitive and aware of privacy concerns and ethical duties. If someone Sheila knows overheard the conversation and identified Sheila from its substance, there could be highly negative effects from increased embarrassment and anger. there would likewise be negative repercussions to the reputation of the agency, and even possible litigation brought separately or jointly against Kiki, the supervisor, and the agency as a whole for a violation of privacy.

Case 2

After Lizzy has been ordered by the courts to attend an outpatient drug treatment program, Tammy locates a program near to Lizzy's home and tells Lizzy that this is the meeting and program she must attend. There is apparently no discussion between the two on the matter, but rather Tammy has acted unilaterally in determining the proper program and meeting for Lizzy.

The primary conflict at work in this scenario is the lack of choice that Lizzy is offered, and the increased risk of failure that this creates for Lizzy both on psychological and practical terms. Such meetings are generally most effective when there is a degree of desire to participate, and if the meeting is viewed as a mandatory imposition, it is less likely that it will have the positive effects intended, and it is less likely that Lizzy will continue regular attendance as ordered by the court and as recommended by most treatment programs.

Knowing the full circumstances of Lizzy's situation and history might shed some more light on the though process behind Tammy's decision in this case, possibly mitigating some of the ethical conflict (if, for instance, Lizzy were under some sort of house arrest and needed a meeting nearby, and was at the full mercy of the court when it came to her schedule over the next months, this decision might be necessary). The regularity of meetings at the location Tammy chose, as well as other available meetings and programs, would also help in determining the level of conflict that is inherent to this situation, and other practical methods to address the issue of Lizzy's mandatory attendance.

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 explanation of her family ties to the agency would likely result in an automatic transfer to a different project, as her employer is no doubt eager to avoid this conflict of interests.

The full nature of the information being shared, and of the suit itself, would both be beneficial in determining the true level of the ethical conflict. 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.