Ethical Dilemma- please help with my paper :)

[Nazia Noor]

So I am writing a paper, and I know the direction of it, but I need to fill in a section on ethical dilemmas because my mind is made up of what I would do and I cannot think beyond my own decision.

The story: There is a social worker named John and he works at a half-way house of sorts for sex offenders. There is a resident named Mickey, and he has abused 6 children. Mickey is being released from the home. John, the social worker, believes that Mickey should not be released, but it is going to happen regardless because the other staff think he should be.

Now for the ethical dilemma.... (which is not an ethical dilemma for me)
Some months go by, and John the social worker, has his friend Dave drop by. Dave is about to go on vacation with his wife, and leaving the kids at home. They have hired a "child care worker" who happens to be Mickey the sex offender.

The video ends with what would you do? Well I know what I would do. So I do not see this as being an ethical dilemma, but for this paper's sake, the ethical dilemma will be to tell Dave that Mickey is a convicted sex offender or not to tell.

So now, I have to come up with external factors and internal factors that would impact my decision making in whether or not I would tell.

• Identify the external factors which could/should have an impact on the outcome of the process.

• Identify the internal factors, which will include your beliefs and values, your experience, etc. which could/should have an impact on the outcome of the process.


Please help with internal and external factors I will check back tomorrow, and hopefully I will have something I can add to my paper to finish it up

Thanks in advance!

 

[Nia More]

Hey Nazia,

I'm not sure what course this is for and I'm more of a poli sci girl so I'm having some trouble differentiating the internal factors from the external factors. Defining them a little more would have been great but here goes.

I'm not sure how your structuring your argument but based on the scenario for me it comes down to a juxtaposition between John's personal relaltionship with Dave vs. John's professional relationship with Mike ( I tried to do this in a chart/colomns but it won't let me! grr!)

John's personal relaltionship with Dave

Rights/freedoms/liberties/security:
-need to protect Dave's children

Relationships:
-loyalty to friend Dave

impact of your decision on yourrelationships:
-how would Dave feel if he found out Mike was a sex offender and his friend John knew and said nothing about it

consequenses and possible outcomes:
-what's the worst thing that could happen if John told Dave about Mike's past as a sex offender

John's professional relationship with Mike

Rights/freedoms/liberties/security:
-Mikes right to a second chance/fresh start

Relationships:
-professional obligation of confidentiality to Mike (not sure if this applies to sex offenders in such a situation but you see where I'm going with it)

impact of your decision on your relationships:
-how would Mike feel if he found out that John, a social worker that he thought he could trust cost him his job/ruined his reputation

consequenses and possible outcomes:
-what is the worst thing that could happen if John didn't tell Dave about Mike's past

I'm not sure if this helps. But I thought the comparison chart might might enable you to look at the dilemma from both sides. I'm up at 1:45am avoiding my own paper maybe I should try your method and see who bites LOL!

 

[erotix]

Nazia

Nia is obviously a smart cookie and a structured thinker... it is an excellent analysis. One tactical question I might have is, what do you think is behind the question from the prof's point of view... what kind of issues have been identified... and have you addressed these in your argument.

Does external mean peer pressure... what would others say of they knew you'd told or didn't

Is there a confidentiality requirement?

There is a a third way. JOhn does have a moral obligation to help Mikey... and the family. Do the most help with the least harm.

John can call Mikey and say, "Hey buddy, by the way I hear you're going to be doing some babysitting. How do you feel about it? Do you think that you might be putting yourself (and others) in a difficult position? Is it worth the risk.? What are the consequences? Does Dave know about your history? "

This might help Mikey see the larger picture and make alternative arrangements... so everyone wins.

If Dave knows Mikey's hisotry, then is it John's business to interfere? Does he have a legal obligation to inform parole officer and so on. Do you know the law?

 

[Madeline Rhodes]

Nia did so well my post is only filler info.

Is there not a professional obligation of a Social Worker to contact CAS if there is potential harm to a child?

This way they are doing their job as they are required to report, they are not breaching confidentiality, and the parents WILL be made aware.

On top of that is it not the case that most offenders who involve children can not be employed around children? So one well placed hone call to the local police again solves this situation.

Regardless of the end result the comment cannot go directly to Dave. It must be handled professionally. The Social Worker is not bound by confidentiality in the event that there is potential risk to a minor. In fact no professional is 100% bound in that situation with regards to the protection of the individual. They are legally bound to report it to the authorities.

http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdoc...hildrensaid/Reportingchildabuseandneglect.pdf

Who does the Act consider a
person who performs professional
or official duties?
· health care professionals, including physicians,
nurses, dentists, pharmacists and psychologists
· teachers and school principals
· social workers and family counsellors
· religious leaders, including priests, rabbis and
members of the clergy
· operators or employees of child care programs
or centres
· youth and recreation workers (not volunteers)
· peace officers and coroners
· child and youth service providers and employees
of these service providers
· any other person who performs professional or
official duties with respect to a child
These are examples only. If you are unsure whether
you fall into any of these categories, ask your local
CAS, professional association or regulatory body.

External factors have to include legal responsibilities and based on the legalities it negates many options here.

 

[papasmerf]

you have no problem

Your first duty is to protect the children even from a potential danger.

And with the laws already in place this means he lied on his application and should be back in jail.

 

[Ceiling Cat]

External factors -

- Your friends have hired a sex offender that has a high probability of re offending.
- He is sent into a situation where he brings his own motives for taking the job.
- He is offered opportunity and has a high probability of re offending.

Internal factors -

- You have an obligation to your client Mickey, to preserve his confidentiality in this matter.
- Mickey has been released from the facility by a higher authority or by a board vote, his release is not reversible unless he re offends or violates a rule.

Has Mickey broken the rules by not disclosing to Dave that he is a sex offender? Has Mickey broken the rules by not disclosing to the authorities that he is working with children?

If I were in this position, I would do what I can to prevent his contact with children. If I can not achieve this through legal channels then I would inform Dave, the authorities and warn Mickey by anonymous letter.

 

[Cassini]

This is not an ethical conflict. The psychiatric guidelines have specific provisions on the duty to report in this case. Look them up.

 

[oldjones]

It wouldn't be ethical to supply you with your paper pre-digested.

Through his job, John has acquired personal information about the offender Mickey, but it's also—the convictions part—in the public record. However, by law, contract and ethics we require folks in John's sort of job to keep all the info they have private. Might as well close the agencies otherwise. John's professional obligation is to Mickey; he must keep his friend outta trouble without screwing Mickey. He can't spill.

If his friend Dave ran a day-care business, he would be required by law (and even if it wasn't the law, it would be his responsibility) to seek out this public legal information before hiring a caregiver. Police record checks we call them. A parent has exactly the same need and responsibility, even if the risk is only to his own kids. They just don't have the experience and pipelines to the info that pofessionals do. And John is a professional

He needs to help Dave hire wisely: tell him how to acquire that info properly, warn him against hiring anyone he doesn't know well, by continuing contact before and after the hiring, and who he has checked out just as if he ran a childcare business. If Dave asks him to get the info, he's gotta be careful.

He needs to go immediately to Mickey and his boss. He has no serious privacy obligation to Dave, nothing wrong with telling Mickey what's gonna happen in the program if he takes the gig. Nor with laying out exactly what the cops could be told if he has probation requirements. But the agency must be told. It's their business not John's. It's their business (and future) if he uses his official access for a friend.

Finally, only in fiction would such an agency not have contacts with reputable, checked out childcare options that they need for their clients and in which some of their clients (who have been checked out) work. Offer to help Dave replace Mickey.

And get to back work on Mickey's thinking; he's just put a whole lotta effort in question. Does he even belong at large?

Your account of the problem says "Dave is about to go". The only really arguable bit is there. If 'about to go' means 'in a couple of weeks' it means one thing, if it means Dave and Mrs. Dave just dropped by to ask John to return their library books, with the canoe already on the car, it's quite another.

Ask your profs about throwing fat people off bridges to stop runaway streetcars.

 

[Aardvark154]

Nazia, here is a link to the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers Code of Ethics. As a professional John has certain legal obligations that he would not as a non-professional: http://www.ocswssw.org/en/code_of_ethics.htm

Ontario has a Sex Offender Registry and presumably Mickey is required to register, however, neither it nor the National Sex Offender Registry are available to the public. http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/police_serv/sor/sor/sor.html

 

[Morpheous]

Although the rate of recidivism is astonishingly lower than what the general public perceives, maybe because sexual offenders evince such strong feelings of revulsion and repugnance .Its still your moral obligation to warn the parents of the persons past. In this case protecting the children safety outweighs all other options. Even if there's a 1% chance of repeating.

 

[Brill]

It's John's professional obligation to help Mickey who is also a victim, remind him not to get into a situation involving children.
If he's advertising himself as a babysitter, tell the other social workers - if they don't care call the police to keep them up to date.

He should also tell his friend that Mickey isn't a suitable choice, this doesn't have to mean he's outing him as a sex offender.

 

[Morpheous]

Mickey.....victim...right.

 

[JustSex]

There is a resident named Mickey, and he has abused 6 children.

Even if there's a 1% chance of repeating.

No training just what I feel is common sense. There is no way a person who has abused 6 children would seek out babysitting jobs if he is 'cured'.

This is not a 1% chance - it is a 99.9% certainty.

The question is really - Are you going to let your best friends children be molested ?

 

[Morpheous]

A guy we grew up with,was arrested,charged and convicted as a sex offender. After he was released we made sure everyone he knew was aware of his crime. Schools ,ice rinks,parks....everywhere he hung out. Legally I wasn't sure if I had the right to do so,but I felt obligated knowing that he was a predator . I sleep well at night knowing I did the right thing.

 

[oldjones]

Gossip is part of how communities work Morph, but it's also torn communities apart and caused irreversable damage to individuals. That's why we invented all sorts of institutions to try to do the job better. You can only hope you did the right thing. Nothing to boast about.

 

[alexmst]

I agree that a lot depends on the time involved. If Mickey is going to take the kids in two weeks, calling a meeting at work to inform the other staff that you have been made aware that Mickey is seeking work as a babysitter and this concerns you is probably the safest route. It is likely that as a child abuser he would be prohibited from seeking paid work supervising kids. The half way house supervisor would be obligated to call either CSA or the police to investigate this. Thus the abuse of the kids would be prevented without John violating confidentiality, as CAS or the police would inform the parents that Mickey is not allowed to supervise children.

If however the family is leaving that day and about to drop off the kids at Mickey's place or are on their way out of town having already left the kids with Mickey, then one has to make a quick decision as I agree with JustSex that a convicted child abuser with multiple victims in his past does not seek out babysitting work on his release from custody unless he has a very high desire to reoffend, much more than 1%. If Mickey had set his llife on reform and resisting temptation, he would seek work far from being in contact with kids. To seek out babysitting work sends out major alarm bells IMO. It is like an alcoholic seeking work as a night security guard watching an empty bar after closing, staring at all those bottles. Not sure what percentage the risk factor would be, but a lot higher than 1%.

If Mickey was convicted of multiple child abuse crimes, his conviction probably would have been in the newspaper at the time. A search on the internet website of a paper like The Star archives would turn it up. John might say "Mickey X...wasn't he in the paper a while back...let's look...searching...oh, here it is...Mickey X convicted of 6 counts..." I would have a very hard time letting a friend go on vacation knowing he unkowingly left his kids with a convicted sex offender. What would the friend think when he found out I knew? If I knew that as part of his release Mickey was prohibited from being alone with children then I would notify CAS explaining the urgency of the matter and they would no doubt co-ordinate with police and intervene. I would defend my action as regards my job by saying, if hauled before a review board, that I had a duty to protect under the law if I suspected abuse may be occuring, and did so not by outing the patient to the public but by going through official channels to CAS and the police. I would rather face that review board than face a police investigation after the kids were abused asking why I did nothing to contact authorities when I knew the children were in high danger before they were abused. Well, I wanted to protect my job and avoid a review board...

 

[HOF]

Nazia, here is a link to the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers Code of Ethics. As a professional John has certain legal obligations that he would not as a non-professional: http://www.ocswssw.org/en/code_of_ethics.htm

Ontario has a Sex Offender Registry and presumably Mickey is required to register, however, neither it nor the National Sex Offender Registry are available to the public. http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/police_serv/sor/sor/sor.html

I will state that after reading this post, I just skimmed the rest. The are no "of sorts" half way houses! It sounds like Dave stopped by the 1/2 way house to visit John, which is very unlikely to happen as that would not be professional. If John and Dave are friends, would Dave not know that John works with SEX offenders? John is in conflict with his team; however, it could just be Mickey's time to leave, which is not a great scenario either.

Now here is your answer, you have a duty to report the abuse or possibility of abuse of a child. In fact, if you don't you can be held negligent under the CFSA. Who is responsible to report abuse or its potential: Short answer anyone in-charge of a child! Any adult that sees or suspects it. You have a 13 year old babysitter for a 5 year child. That babysitter is supposed to have taken a course on what to do, who to contact, emergencies, etc. You volunteer as a coach then you have an obligation to report. You may be called to your college to explain/justify your actions, you may get a letter on your file, but it's better than the other scenarios.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c11_e.htm#BK113
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c11_e.htm#BK124

http://www.ocswssw.org/en/code_of_ethics.htm
http://www.ocswssw.org/en/complaints.htm

http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/police_serv/sor/sor/ChristophersLaw/christopher.html

http://www.oacas.org/childwelfare/report.htm
http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/Family Abuse Registry/Family Abuse Registry.html

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/sum/cprs200407_1-eng.aspx
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/04/tracking-sex-offenders-the-hard-way/
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/OffenderAssessment.shtml

 

[oldjones]

Imminent danger—like the parents are on their way, and Mickey's already got the kids—changes everything except the danger of screwing up by doing the wrong thing. So you kick it upstairs, to your bosses at the agency, to the Children's Aid, to the cops. And you go 'upstairs' too, to make sure they are taking it seriously and acting promptly. Or you hustle on over to buddy Dave's place, and talk to your client Mickey while you wait for the Marines to arrive. You can call them from there if you have to.

All that stuff depends on who you can get hold of first, whether they'll listen, how fast someone can get to the kids. But those aren't ethical questions and answers, they're practical ones and the OPs question is about where the ethics lie. You must not allow your responsibility to your client to endanger others, what actions are available to you?

 

[HOF]

OJ, you don't just kick it upstairs! You are obligated to report abuse or potential abuse of a child.

 

[oldjones]

So you kick it upstairs, to your bosses at the agency, to the Children's Aid, to the cops

If that didn't sound like reporting, sorry I wasn't clear.

If you look again, I was trying to address an imminent danger situation, which is no time for a single individual to wonder in solitary what's ethical. You look for the closest, most useful higher authority whose attention you can attract and get onto them immediately, if not sooner, so that action is taken. In casual terms 'kick it upstairs'.

I'd say even with non-emergency situations, that's a decent approach to ethical problems, certainly within the sort of agency being discussed. The situation may be new to you, but actually be old hat to the higher-ups who've had more experience. And as an agent of that organization you owe them a heads-up when touchy, difficult or ambiguous situations arise, even if you're confident you know how to deal with them.

A legal obligation to report info is clearly germane, but the OP didn't seem to be proposing a situation from a legalities seminar. As I understood it was a question of what is right? how do I do right by the client, the agency, the friend and of course, and most importantly the children? That was the context of my answers, hoping they'd be helpful for a paper on ethics. But again, if the hypothetical worker John didn't know his legal duty, kicking it upstairs should get it clarified.

In your country of Hammer—wherever that may be—there may be a law obligating reporting, but no TERBian really can say where another might be posting from, and any statement about what a law obligates one to do, should make it very clear just what small part of the planet that law applies to. If John was a budd of DaveInPhoenix his legal obligations might be differnet than if he lived in say, Hamilton. The ethical ones likely wouldn't. Might even border on universal.

Agreed HOF, one should never "…just kick it upstairs", or tell anyone to just do anything. Life is hard, and there ain't no 'just'ses.

So how do you feel about throwing fat people off bridges to stop runaway streetcars from mowing down pedestrians? Ethicly acceptable?