Ethical Principles and Codes of Practice Essay

Ethical prescripts and codes of hap can provide guidance in day-to-day pr symbolizeice. Analyse motherfuckers situation in the facial expression battleground and come to a conclusion about what would be an appropriate response.This essay leave analyse the honorable principles and code of commit in relation to the case study of putz, a man suffering from Alzheimers indisposition and will suggest a quarrel of action for Peters situation based upon the application of these principles and the code. It will do this by examining the term ethics and will focus on quadruple honourable principles found to be relative to the kinds of ethical issues and challenges met indoors health and social cargon mountaintings, these will be applied to the case study. Peters situation is that of a man, who, at the request of his family, unhappily (but appargonntly necessarily), moved to Parkside Manor, a small residential disquiet home. Of late Peters terminus of Alzheimers disease has adv anced and he has become progressively uninhibited. His behaviour has caused the ply to question Peters post at the heraldic bearing home, as some of the other residents are beginning to become troubled and distressed by his behaviour.Some round feel that with the number of residents needing attention, Peters call for require more meter than they piddle to give. so far Peters family are resolute in their decision for him to remain at Parkside. ethical motive are defined as the philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct and of the rules and principles that ought to govern it (Collins, 2006, p535). Individual values kick d avouchstairs over time through socialisation, upbringing and experiences. These values when viewed on a soulal level, guide individualist actions. Individuals working in the health and social care setting also condition professional values derived from professional training and ideology. Decisions are made using both personal and professiona l values and all decisions will lay down an ethical dimension. Historically health and social care practiti singlers have been directed by principles and guidance, enabling them to develop what is described as a professional morality. Codes of practice have long been seen as regulations guiding practice, with clear standards of conduct (general tender foreboding Council, 2010, p 4).These usually include some exclusions such(prenominal) as disclosure of information but they mainly describe expected forms of conduct. In areas of health and social care 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 business thing or that which is moral and with stems of what is obedient and bad practice (K217, Book 4, p28).This idea can be puzzleatic and can be viewed both objectively and subjectively. If viewed from an objective point of view, who should be trusted to know what is th e objective truth? If subjective, who is the whizz whose opinion should be listened to? Questions such as these are often at the core of dilemmas. Professionals working within health and social care environments do not just deal with decisions based upon the correctly and good. Consideration should also be given to ethical dilemmas, these are situations when two choices are apparent, both equal in morality and ethics (K217, Book4, p29).Pattison and Heller (2001) suggest, ethics and value issues thread their way through normal, daily health care practice, the interpretation of which is open to more than one explanation (K217, Offprints, p131). Although principles guide actions, there is still a need to assess a situation and devise an appropriate response. This assessment and response derive from an individuals values and training as much as from principles. Ethical principles are important in the field of health and social care. Practitioners need to have the powerfulness to make informed, ethical and justifiable decisions relating to the individuals in their care. This can be difficult when faced with a challenging case. Using a simulation to develop a structured way of thinking through a particular ethical situation or challenge can be sponsorful. The ETHICS framework was developed to assist people working in care settings and offers a structured way of assessing a course of action in order 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 well 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 problematical, Hear the views of everyone (including answer user, family members and relevant providers), light upon any relevant ethical principles and values which may help to guide the decisionmaking process, Clarify the meaning and consequences of any key values and lastly Select a course of action offering put forwarding arguments (K217, Book4, p32). When taking into account the case study, four ethical principles will be examined. These are repute for autonomy, non-malfeasance, beneficence 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 useful guiding principles for practitioners when faced with controversial decisions (K217, Book 4, p34).In Peters situation, Autonomy or self-determination is complex. Respect for Autonomy refers to a commitment to respect the decision-making capability of an autonomous individual. Autonomy is the freedom to act as a person tenderes, to be able to make decisions about their own life and not to be controlled by others. The case study points out that Peter 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 autonomous and make healthy informed choices. Beauchamp and Childress (2009) identify two areas necessary for autonomy Liberty or independence from control and Agency, the capacity for deliberate action (K217, Book 4, p39).When applying this principle to Peters case, it could be argued that a diagnosis of Alzheimers limits his capabilities to make decisions for himself, limiting capacity for conceptional 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 time seeking to ensure that their behaviour does not harm themselves or others (General Social Care Council, 2010, p9, 4.2). This causes a conflict of interest between Peters rights t o 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 being unconnected or distressed by Peters actions. Staff may wish to take steps to minimise the potential risk of Peters behaviour causing mental harm and upset to other residents and by following risk assessment policies could assess the potential risks in this situation (General Social Care Council, 2010, p9, 4.2). Identifying harmful behaviour is multifaceted and open to interpretation.The assessment of risk could have serious consequences for Peter perhaps leading to a limiting of his rights and conversancy in the interest of protecting others from harm (K217, Book 4, p60). Therefore over protection or unnecessary limitation 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 to a lower placestand that his actions could be deba uched and upsetting for others. This being the case it may also be appropriate to talk to both Peter and his family about the situation in order to let on a solution. As the code of practice maintains, care workers must promote the independence of service users and assist them to understand and exercise 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 balanced perspective. Beneficence and the promotion of wellbeing are concerned with the provision of benefits and the balance of these a gainst risk in the care and treatment 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 beneficence 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 means that he is incapable(p) 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 channelise 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 well(predicate) 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-causing activities, this includes negligence. Having a duty of care for a person or persons in care is an ethical concept, neg lect is an absence of due 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 contend that his behaviour around Parkside Manor could be having a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of the other residents who are beginning to be upset by Peters uninhibited behaviour. 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 assign a person as an advocate to represent and support (where appropriate) Peters vi ews 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 Section 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 highlights 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 qu estions 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 common 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 ways to reduce the risk to others and to Peters dignity and privacy. As the code of practice states a social care worker must respect and maintain dignity and privacy o f service users (general Social Care Council, 2010, p6, 1.4). Some of the staff at Parkside have begun to question if the posture 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. One solution for the family may be to 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 conditi ons such as Alzheimers disease could enhance quality of care and increase Peters quality of life.BibliographyCollins, 2006, Collins Concise English Dictionary. Glasgow, HarperCollins Publishers.Open 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. addressable 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.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2540719/pdf/bmj00449-0050.pdf Accessed 09/03/12