Ethical Principles and Codes of Practice Essay

Ethical principles and codes of work divulge can provide management in day-to-day practice. Analyse instruments place in the case study and fall d confess to a conclusion about what would be an appropriate response.This essay will analyse the good principles and code of practice in relation to the case study of shaft of light, a man deadening from Alzheimers dioceanse and will suggest a course of put through for nibs mail based upon the per conformityance of these principles and the code. It will do this by examining the term moral philosophy and will focus on quadruple good principles found to be relative to the kinds of honest issues and challenges met in spite of appearance wellness and kind c ar servetings, these will be applied to the case study. stopcocks situation is that of a man, who, at the involve of his family, unhappily (but patently necessarily), moved to Parkside Manor, a small residential portion out home. Of late rotating shafts condition of Alzheimers disease has advanced and he has drive progressively uninhibited. His behaviour has caused the mental faculty to question slits perspective at the dispense home, as some of the former(a) residents ar kickoff to become troubled and distressed by his behaviour.Some round timbre that with the number of residents needing attention, putzs needs require more season than they accept to give. However dents family argon resolute in their decision for him to remain at Parkside. Ethics are defined as the philosophical study of the lesson value of human add and of the rules and principles that ought to baffle it (Collins, 2006, p535). Individual values develop over time through societalisation, upbringing and experiences. These values when viewed on a mortal-to-person level, guide private attains. Individuals functional in the health and brotherly tuition setting also preserve master key values derived from professional training and ideology. Decisions a re made victimization twain personal and professional values and all decisions will turn out an estimable dimension. Historically health and friendly caution practitioners bemuse been tell by principles and guidance, enabling them to develop what is described as a professional moralisticity. Codes of practice have long been seen as regulations guiding practice, with clear standards of conduct (General sociable Care Council, 2010, p 4).These usually include some riddances such(prenominal) as disclosure of information but they chiefly describe expect forms of conduct. In areas of health and social superintend ethical principles are used along with codes of practice to guide and enhance the decision-making process. These principles are related to a sense of doing the right thing or that which is moral and with ideas of what is good and bad practice (K217, Book 4, p28).This idea can be problematic and can be viewed both objectively and subjectively. If viewed from an objectiv e forecast of view, who should be trusted to know what is the objective truth? If subjective, who is the one whose faith should be listened to? Questions such as these are often at the middle of dilemmas. Professionals working within health and social care environments do not just deal with decisions based upon the right and good. Consideration should also be given to ethical dilemmas, these are situations when two choices are apparent, both get even in morality and ethics (K217, Book4, p29).Pattison and Heller (2001) suggest, ethics and value issues nose their way through normal, daily health care practice, the interpretation of which is candid to more than one explanation (K217, Offprints, p131). Although principles guide activitys, there is still a need to assess a situation and devise an appropriate response. This judgment and response derive from an soulfulnesss values and training as much as from principles. Ethical principles are important in the work of health and social care. Practitioners need to have the ability to harbor informed, ethical and justificapable decisions relating to the individuals in their care. This can be touchy when faced with a challenging case. Using a framework to develop a unified way of thinking through a particular ethical situation or challenge can be helpful. The ETHICS framework was highly-developed to assist people working in care settings and offers a organise way of assessing a course of action in determine to come to an ethically informed decision.It emphasizes the need to be able to select a course of action based upon guidance, information and established principles, as wholesome as the individuals beliefs. The framework requires practitioners to firstly, Enquire about the relevant facts of the case, Think about the options that are available to all involved, Hear the views of everyone (including serve up user, family members and relevant providers), Identify all relevant ethical principles and valu es which whitethorn help to guide the decisionmaking process, Clarify the meaning and consequences of any key values and finally Select a course of action offering supporting arguments (K217, Book4, p32). When taking into account the case study, tetrad ethical principles will be examined. These are respect for self-sufficiency, non-malfeasance, almsgiving and justice. The principles are seen as the starting points for the development of ethical approaches to care practice, providing a practical set of principles, which rather than offering direct answers to ethical dilemmas, set out utile guiding principles for practitioners when faced with controversial decisions (K217, Book 4, p34).In hammers situation, Autonomy or self-determination is complex. Respect for Autonomy refers to a lading to respect the decision-making capability of an main(a) individual. Autonomy is the freedom to act as a person paying attentiones, to be able to make decisions about their admit life and not to be controlled by former(a)s. The case study points out that rooster unhappily left his home, at the request of his family to move into Parkside Manor, indicating that Peter had no control over this situation. This lack of right to choose where he lives, directly impinges on Peters ability to be supreme and make reasoned informed choices. Beauchamp and Childress (2009) identify two areas indispensable for autonomy Liberty or independence from control and Agency, the electrical capacity for deliberate action (K217, Book 4, p39).When applying this principle to Peters case, it could be argued that a diagnosing of Alzheimers limits his capabilities to make decisions for himself, limiting capacity for intentional action and so reducing Peters ability to function as an autonomous individual. The codes of practice for social care workers (2010) state a social care worker must respect the rights of service users while seeking to fancy that their behaviour does not harm themselves or opposites (General Social Care Council, 2010, p9, 4.2). This causes a conflict of interest surrounded by Peters rights to act in a manner that he chooses and that of the other residents, who deserve to be able to move freely about the home without the risk of creation disoriented or distressed by Peters actions. Staff whitethorn wish to take steps to minimise the potential risk of Peters behaviour causing mental harm and upset to other residents and by following risk estimate policies could assess the potential risks in this situation (General Social Care Council, 2010, p9, 4.2). Identifying harmful behaviour is multifaceted and broadcast to interpretation.The assessment of risk could have serious consequences for Peter perhaps leading to a limiting of his rights and liberty in the interest of protecting others from harm (K217, Book 4, p60). Therefore over protection or unnecessary restriction could be considered an infringement upon Peters human rights (K217, Book 4 p65). The case study does not accurately point out if Peter has the mental capability to understand that his actions could be disruptive and upsetting for others. This being the case it whitethorn also be appropriate to talk to both Peter and his family about the situation in order to find a solution. As the code of practice maintains, care workers must promote the independence of service users and assist them to understand and mold their rights (General Social Care Council, 2010, p8, 3.1). It is suggested, that in cases where decision making capacity is deemed to be impaired, respect for autonomy may involve the care worker acting appropriately in an individuals best interests (K217, Book 4, p40). The difficulty here is that Peters best interests cannot be viewed without taking into account the best interests of other residents, care workers and relatives.This shows the limits of the code of practice in taking a narrow ethical view rather than trying to take a wider and more equilibri ze perspective. Beneficence and the promotion of welfare are concerned with the provision of upbeats and the balance of these against risk in the care and discussion of service users. It requires that care providers make a positive contribution to help others, not just refrain from acts of harm. It could be argued that in Peters case, moving into a residential setting may be seen as doing good. The theory of philanthropy or doing good is embedded in health and social care practice. Although, rather than being straightforward in its attempts to solve ethical dilemmas, beneficence can be viewed as being rather vague (K217, Book4, p34). The application of beneficence in Peters situation could be seen as a controversial one. The need to do good in this situation could be seen to be against Peters best interests, as in the case of consent.The case study alludes to the fact that Peters family are making decisions on behalf of Peter and that the diagnosis of Alzheimers disease kernel that he is incapable of contributing to decisions around his care and wellbeing. It could therefore be argued that this results in a paternalistic approach to care, whereby the family (who are making decisions on behalf of Peter) may be guided by practitioners views of what is in Peters best interests and in doing so may neglect the choice and personal responsibility of the individual (K217, Book 4, p36). However paternalism may be viewed as acceptable if it is proved that Peters autonomy or decision-making capacity is compromised. In this case it may be advisable to initiate an assessment of Peters mental health capacity in order to justify the families involvement in the decision-making process.Beauchamp and Childress (2009) claim, the philosophy of non-malfeasance is an obligation to do no harm. Unlike beneficence, which promotes welfare and concentrates upon positively helping others, non-malfeasance focuses upon guiding health and social care practitioners to avoid harm-causin g activities, this includes negligence. Having a duty of care for a person or persons in care is an ethical concept, neglect is an absence of referable care the lack of which would be seen as falling below the standards expected by the law and code of practice. The principle of non-malfeasance can be difficult to apply in practice (K217, Book 4, p37). Peter has not been physically harmed himself, although it could be disputed that his behaviour around Parkside Manor could be having a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of the other residents who are starting line to be upset by Peters uninhibited behaviour. discussion section 3 of the codes of practice for social care workers may guide staff in promoting the independence of other service users (residents) in assisting them to understand and exercise their rights to autonomy.Also for staff to use the appropriate procedures and protocols in which to keep other service users safe from harm (General Social Care Council, 2010, p8, 3.1 ). As stated, Peters ability to make decisions about his care could be impaired, as in the right to choose where to live (which was made at the request of his family). However, maintaining Peter in his own home, as was his wish, would require extra resources such as daily social care help. If this was unavailable, Peters wish to remain in his home could be seen as detrimental to his health and wellbeing as his condition deteriorated and this would not uphold the principle of non- malfeasance. The moral principle of justice according to Beauchamp (2006) is fairness in the distribution of benefit and risk (K217, Book4, p42). It can be viewed as fair, impartial and suitable treatment for the autonomous individual. This suggests that everyone has the right to participate in the decision-making process surrounding their own treatment.This clearly is not the case for Peter, as he may no longer be classed as an autonomous service user and may not be able to articulate his needs or desires in respect of his care. In this case the staff may wish to limit a person as an advocate to represent and support (where appropriate) Peters views and wishes (General Social Care Council, 2010, p6, 1.2). The case study also identifies the staffs growing concerns about their own abilities to be able to give Peter the care that he requires, with some suggesting that his needs demand more time than they have available. The code of practice sets out clear guidelines for staff in department 3, stating that any resource or operational difficulties experienced by the care worker is to be brought to the attention of the employer or the appropriate authority (General Social Care Council, 2010, p8, 3.4).Staff working within the care home are under increasing pressure to cope with the demanding behaviour that Peter displays and in this case may feel that they are neglecting the other residents because of Peters growing needs. This cotton ups the problem staff have in distinguishing fairly between those that are seen to need support and those that are not. Discrimination such as this all be it without intention of causing harm, raises questions of inequality. As highlighted, codes of practice and other ethical guidelines are not without their limitations. These limitations are often down to an individuals freedom of choice and their views of what is right and wrong. Codes of practice deal in respect of that is the norm not the usual and at this point popular sense and a corporate view are necessary. Using the four principles to analyse Peters situation is far from simple as the principles themselves are open to individual interpretation.The task for those directly involved in Peters care, such as family, professionals and the care workers at Parkside, is to ascertain their legal, professional and ethical positions and balance these against the need to protect and care for other residents and staff within the care setting. This may involve identifying ship canal to re duce the risk to others and to Peters dignity and concealment. As the code of practice states a social care worker must respect and maintain dignity and privacy of service users (general Social Care Council, 2010, p6, 1.4). Some of the staff at Parkside have begun to question if the lieu is an appropriate one given Peters growing needs.Staff at Parkside Manor could begin to examine ways of improving the care and support on offer to both Peter and the other residents by firstly initiating an assessment of Peters mental health capacity, in order for staff to better comprehend Peters level of understanding and to further meet his needs. This will form part of a support plan that will identify resources necessary to meet his growing requirements. The case study does not adequately highlight if Parkside Manor is equipped to deal with mental health problems such as Alzheimers or if the population is that of older residents with general care needs. maven solution for the family may be t o investigate the possibility of an alternative placement for Peter. Placing Peter in a more suitable setting where the staff are more used to dealing with conditions such as Alzheimers disease could enhance quality of care and increase Peters quality of life.BibliographyCollins, 2006, Collins Concise English Dictionary. Glasgow, HarperCollins Publishers. subject University (2010) K217, Adult health, social care and wellbeing, Chapter 14, Ethics in health and social care. Milton Keynes,The Open UniversityOpen University (2010) K217, Adult health, social care and wellbeing, Offprints, Swimming in a sea of ethics and values. Milton Keynes,The Open UniversityGeneral Social Care Council, 2010, Codes of Practice for social care workers. Available at http//www.gscc.org.uk/cmsFiles/Registration/Codes%20of%20Practice/CodesofPracticeforSocialCareWorkers.pdf Accessed 25/02/12Gillon Raanan, 1994, Medical ethics four principles plus the attention to scope. Available at http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g ov/pmc/articles/PMC2540719/pdf/bmj00449-0050.pdf Accessed 09/03/12