Transcript Slide 1
The AASW Code of Ethics Under Scrutiny
Donna McAuliffe National Convenor AASW National Ethics Group (NEG)
Devotion to Truth Socratic Dialogue Development of Self Importance of Virtues Standpoint of Ignorance The Examined Life
Ethics in the AASW
• 1965 – first ‘code of professional ethics’ • Code reviewed every ten years or so • Last review 1999 (current code) • Code of Ethics (1999) predates Practice Standards document (2003) • Current By-Laws on Ethics (2007)
• “Like a violence-torn home that presents like the Partridge family in public, the Code hides the grandest secret of them all; that social work is a conflictual professional community with no ethical centre”. (De Maria, 1997, p. 5) • “In fact a stranger could be forgiven for reading the Code and thinking that social work is a profession of suite-dwelling fee-setters in private practice”. (De Maria, 1997, p. 9)
• “There is some indication, from both our interviews and the review of the literature, that the idea of one consensual Code consisting of a united value and moral stance may, in itself, be oppressive and discriminatory in relation to the many voices and positions in the political landscape o f the social work constituency”. (Noble & Briskman, 1998, p. 14)
• “What a Code of Ethics can provide is guidance in the resolution of the dilemmas of practice. Such a Code loses potency, however, when practitioners can avoid scrutiny of their conduct and competence by choosing to walk away from the requirement to adhere to its provisions, in a way which no other profession would allow”. (Murray & Swain, 1999, p. 16)
AASW Ethics Framework (2008-)
• Ethics complaint
management
• New structure 2008 • New By-Laws on Ethics 2008 • New process 2008 • New staff 2008 • Ethics education, training
and policy
• Revision of Code of Ethics • Continuing Professional Education • Ethics education in Schools of Social Work • Advice/consultation at the local level • Policy initiatives
Responsibilities
• Ethics complaint
management
• • • • Ethics Officer fulltime position; administrative support (Kym Daly) – • National Ethics Panel (3) Kerryn Pennell (Chair) Sharon McCallum (member) Jane Thomson (member) • National Ethics Pool (15) – probity checks, training • Appeal Panel (3) • Ethics Education,
Training and Policy
• Ethics Officer • National Ethics Group • (Donna McAuliffe (Convenor) • Gail Slocombe (Board appointee) + Convenors of BEGs • Branch Ethics Groups • Code of Ethics Review Policy Officer (Sharlene Nipperess )
International Federation of Social Workers • • • • • Human Rights and Human Dignity (1) respecting the right to self determination; (2) promoting the right to participation; (3) treating each person as a whole; (4) identifying and developing strengths • Social Justice • (1) challenging negative discrimination; • (2) respecting diversity; • (3) distributing resources equitably; • (4) challenging unjust policies and practices; • (5) working in solidarity.
“Critics of the Australian Code argue that it favours individual change, and openly discourages political advocacy and activism including direct action interventions and such, as civil disobedience” (Mendes, 2002, p. 163).
“I wouldn’t know if the code of ethics supported my stance…I’m not sure if I’ve ever read it” “I haven’t read them in years – I’m not sure how many of us really know what they are”
30 20 10 0 70 60 50 40 National Ethical Conduct Survey 2004 (n=602)
Rating of understanding of the AASW Code of Ethics?
Very good understanding Reasonable understanding Limited understanding No understanding
Rating of understanding of the AASW Code of Ethics?
Refer to AASW Code of Ethics for guidance
30 20 10 0 70 60 50 40 Regularly refer to the AASW Code of Ethics Sometimes refer to the AASW Code of Ethics Never refer to the AASW Code of Ethics
Refer to AASW Code of Ethics for guidance
The purpose of the Code is to:
• identify the values and principles practice which underpin ethical social work • provide a guide and standard accountable service • provide a foundation for ethical social work conduct and for ethical reflection and decision-making • guide social workers when determining what demands they may legitimately make on their employers, colleagues and the AASW • provide clarification of social workers’ actions in the context of industrial or legal disputes • act as a basis for investigation and adjudication about unethical conduct.
of formal complaints
Values
• Human dignity and worth • Social justice • Service to humanity • Integrity • Competence
Structure of the Code
• General ethical responsibilities • Responsibilities to clients • Responsibilities to colleagues • Responsibilities in the workplace • Responsibilities in particular settings • Responsibilities to the profession • PLUS ethical decision-making guidelines and glossary of terms
Problems with codes
• Lack of clarity and precision – open to interpretation • Client knowledge • Internal and external conflicts • Which code?
• Cultural frameworks and context • Diversity of viewpoints
• A code of ethics, inevitably, amounts to something written by a small group of people (ie an ethics committee) who have set themselves up to tell other social workers how they should and should not practice. Hence by its very nature the code of ethics becomes an instrument of control. This raises the questions of who wrote the code of ethics, who approved it, who applies it, and how; all these are essentially political acts which will portray a particular form of social work practice as preferred and which will reflect certain assumptions about the ideology of practice (Ife 2001, p. 107).
• When we think about who is constrained by codes of ethics in contemporary society, it is indeed the powerful – the professions (medicine, law, social work, psychology). By contrast, there is little talk of the need for a code of ethics for prisoners, or indigenous people, or residents or nursing homes, families in poverty, people with disabilities, and other less powerful groups. Ethics is therefore a discourse about the behaviour of the powerful and is an attempt to circumscribe such behaviour in the interests of the less powerful (Ife 2001, p. 110).
• Codes not only make tangible the nebulous qualities of values but with their blend of values, ethical principles and rules governing behaviour, they can be used to assist – and control – the practitioner. (Clifford & Burke, 2009, p. 51)
• “Are Code of Ethics expectations any more than appropriate sounding professional rhetoric?” (Swain, 2006, p. 97)
Information Technology
Cultural Issues
Boundaries
Privacy
SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGION
Responsibilities in the workplace
Reciprocal rights
Management
• “The code of ethics can be seen as the means by which the ideals of the profession are translated into practice, and, given the lack of status of social work, this could be seen as an important part of the struggle for recognition and respect of a profession that is often criticised and marginalised”. (Clifford & Burke, 2009, p. 53)