Ethics concepts and frameworks

Ethics

Vignette

Several ethical issues emanate from this scenario. I was not informed as the member of the faculty about the main objective behind the issue to be discussed. It did not communicate clearly the sole purpose for the issue discussed. Despite being allotted the task, the head of department did not actively participate in the meeting aimed at coming up with responses to the respective issue under discussion. Besides, the intentions to publish the resulting information in a journal we not clear. Another key ethical issue is that the head of the department goes ahead to publish a journal under his name as the sole author yet his participation was minimal. In addition, he uses the word-for-word information for the whole document and only acknowledges us in the appendix.

The ethical code does not support such malpractices as displayed by the head of department. The information we shared should be treated as intellectual property that needs acknowledgement even if the department paid for our time. For instance, even after paying for a book, one is not allowed to duplicate or copy information from such works without the author's consent. Furthermore, the code of ethics only permits for acknowledgement of the authors where a relatively smaller section of the original work has been quoted. However, it is unethical if information is reproduced word-to-word and the authors are not acknowledged. In such circumstances, the authors should only be acknowledged as coauthors and not in the appendix or reference sections. In essence, the head of the department acted in an illegal manner and stands must be sued for breaching the codes of conduct. In addition, he did not disclose to us how that information was to be used. It an ethical requirement to inform the respondent always on the purpose of any information sourced from him or her (Margolin, 2008).

However, it is a requirement that before any information is provided, the parties involved clearly stating the conditions under which such information should be used sign a formal agreement. In this case, there is no formal document showing a mutual agreement on how the information should be used although our department head abused our courtesy. There is even no proof that we provided the information published in the journal. Given that there is no agreement, the department head is justified to use the information as he wishes because there is no published document containing such information. It will be assumed that the agreement was open and hence the information we provided could be used in any way. Formal documentation should follow all claims to the possession of the scholarly asset in order to give evidence of ownership or agreement. Lack of such documentations renders our claim vague and devoid of evidence.

Ethically, the head of the department was wrong. The correct procedure was to either enlist us as coauthors or use the information in another and acknowledged us in the reference section.

Vignette 2

In this scenario, there are ethical issues that vividly emerge. For instance, I had been dealing with the client for a couple of days before her condition worsened arising from her abuse of drugs I prescribed to her. She signed a generic release form and referred to another inpatient facility. However, I am denied permission to know of her condition. The ethical issue in this case is twofold: the hospital is entitled to protect the information pertaining to a patient from any unauthorized persons. On the other hand, I am justified to seek for information about a patient that I was initially treating before referring her to another facility (Brady & Hatch, 2007).

Having been the initial attendant to the patient, I am ethically justified to access any information concerning my client after referring her to another facility. As such, I need to know he progress and thereafter give advice on the best way of assisting her recover faster. Her condition was not beyond my ability, but just because the client needed more attention and supervision, which I was not able to provide at my facility. However, the ethical code requires that the correct procedure be followed. For instance, I have to identify myself and give proof of my claim. In other words, I was required to fax the release form to verify my claim. In addition, I should also state my intentions clearly for seeking the information.

It will also be logical and legitimate if I gave the client a referral letter to the client to be used by the other facility. This would act as evidence that I am the one who referred her to the respective facility. Having the release form alone does not make much sense and gives no evidence that the patient was released on the referral terms. As such, the other facility is justified to decline my request. It is ethical and in line with the codes. Concisely, I cannot use the release form that the client signed initially in order to obtain information about her condition in the other facility without providing information that shows I am the one who referred her to the new facility (Carroll & Gannon, 2007).

Vignette 3

There are both ethical and therapeutic issues emerging from the scenario. For instance, the client confines a lot of information to me before developing post-traumatic symptoms because of injuries sustained at the place of work. The insurance covering body, however, declines meeting her psychotherapy cost. I am required to prove to the board that she suffered from psychological injuries and has been undergoing psychotherapy even before the injuries. However, several pertinent ethical and therapeutic issues need to be considered before giving the testimony.

Although confidentiality is highly esteemed in this profession, exceptions also exist under certain exceptional circumstances as such. However, it is technical and risky in the sense that by disclosing information entrusted to me by the client might put her job at stake or even lead to her employment being terminated. In addition, the need for the client's consent to allow me share the information is necessary. The client can also go ahead and sue me for disclosing professional information against the requirements, especially if the outcome is negative.