It’s Our Choice
Sometimes as social workers we wonder about engaging in a dual relationship, conducting an online search on a client, or avoiding an impaired or incompetent colleague. In each of these situations it is important to remember we have chosen this profession and inherent in this choice is a responsibility. This choice is ours alone, it has not been forced upon us externally. This choice, then, guides us when confronted with an ethical dilemma. Once we as social workers begin providing services to a client we are bound to follow the NASW Code of Ethics. Since we have freely chosen this social work role we are also choosing to accept and abide by the NASW Code of Ethics.
Our NASW Code of Ethics serves as a guidepost to work with integrity so the place to start in ethical decision making is with our codes. Reamer (2013) reminds us,
“What matter most is that social workers who encounter challenging issues emulate what Schon (1983) refers to as “reflective practice,” wherein practitioners engage in a continuous cycle of self-reflection about the process they use to make decisions and act on their decisions… The bottom line is that social work is by definition a profession with a moral mission, and this obligates its members to continually examine the values and ethical dimensions of practice.” (p. 220)
Let’s take a look at the examples above in light of our choice to be a social worker.
Social workers should not engage in dual or multiple relationships with clients or former clients in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client. In instances when dual or multiple relationships are unavoidable, social workers should take steps to protect clients and are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries. (Dual or multiple relationships occur when social workers relate to clients in more than one relationship, whether professional, social, or business. Dual or multiple relationships can occur simultaneously or consecutively.)
Reamer (2018) clarifies that dual or multiple relationships “can assume many forms” on a continuum of coincidental social contact which is temporary and most likely superficial to “more intimate, self-serving, and exploitive circumstances” with a risk of harm to the client.
“When faced with such circumstances, social workers should consult with experienced colleagues and supervisors to think through their decisions thoroughly and responsibly… and document that they obtained such consultation and supervision to demonstrate that they made a diligent effort to handle the situation ethically.” (p. 54-7)
There seems to be on-going confusion as to what constitutes a dual or multiple relationship with a client.
Social workers should not engage in dual or multiple relationships with clients or former clients in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client.
Koocher & Keith-Spiegel further explain,
“All intentional decisions to blur roles require sound clinical judgment indicating clearheaded self-awareness of one’s motives, an assessment of how the client would benefit, and any foreseeable consequences. A consideration of cultural differences is also essential.” (p. 236). Both of these references have in common the caution of intentionally allowing a dual or multiple relationship to occur. Remembering at the juncture where a temporary and superficial contact starts to become an intentional decision on the part of the social worker, that we chose to be in the role as social worker might help us with the ethical decision making process. The justification that the client is requesting it is not an adequate explanation demonstrating reflective practice.
Intentionality also guides us in the next example of being curious and gathering information from the internet about a client. NASW Code of Ethics (2017) Standard 1.03 (i) requires that,
“Social workers should obtain client consent before conducting an electronic search on the client. Exceptions may arise when the search is for purposes of protecting the client or other people from serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm, or for other compelling professional reasons.”
This is a new code which has been added to protect the privacy of clients and speaks to the integrity of our profession. Once again, it is our choice to be in the role of a social worker and our duty to “act honestly and responsibly and promote ethical practices.” (2017)
Situations may arise in which a social worker learns of the impairment, incompetence, or unethical behavior of a colleague and not know what to do. Using the guidepost of the reflective practice discussed above, we have a place to start. There are various NASW Code of Ethics (2017) Standards which address the ethical responsibility to a colleague:
- 2.08 (a) Social workers who have direct knowledge of a social work colleague’s impairment that is due to personal problems, psychosocial distress, substance abuse, or mental health difficulties and that interferes with practice effectiveness should consult with that colleague when feasible and assist the colleague in taking remedial action.
- 2.09 (a) Social workers who have direct knowledge of a social work colleague’s incompetence should consult with that colleague when feasible and assist the colleague in taking remedial action.
- 2.10 (a) Social workers should take adequate measures to discourage, prevent, expose, and correct the unethical conduct of colleagues, including unethical conduct using technology.
- 2.10 (c) Social workers who believe that a colleague has acted unethically should see resolution by discussing their concerns with the colleague when feasible and when such discussion is likely to be productive.
Recalling our choice to be in the role of a social worker informs our action to consult with the colleague in question. According to Reamer (2018),
“One characteristic of being a member of a profession is willingness to establish, maintain, and enforce high ethical standards.” (p. 143)
It’s simple. Keep it simple.
Recalling our choice to be in the role of a social worker informs our action to consult with the colleague in question. According to Reamer (2018),
“One characteristic of being a member of a profession is willingness to establish, maintain, and enforce high ethical standards.” (p. 143)
Reading the Preamble to the NASW Code of Ethics (2017) might remind us the reason we have chosen this profession.
“The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty.”
Upholding this mission is our commitment to engage in ethical practice.
Many years ago a teacher of mine said, “It’s simple. Keep it simple.” I repeat those words to myself when faced with an ethical challenge and start with the simple action of referring to the NASW Code of Ethics. Our Code of Ethics is a strong backbone, providing us with guidance and support. When in doubt, read the codes. Remember the choice was ours to become a social worker and the choice is ours to remain practicing as a social worker.
References:
- Koocher, G.P. & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2016). Ethics in Psychology and the Mental Health Professions: Standards and Cases (4th Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
- National Association of Social Workers. (2017). NASW code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/ About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
- Reamer, F.G. (2018). Ethical standards in social work: A review of the NASW code of ethics. (3rd edition). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
- Reamer, F.G. (2013) Social Work Values and Ethic (4th Ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Originally posted in NASW NC, The NC Social Work Newsletter August/September/October 2019, XLIII No. 3
Related Articles
Using Motivational Interviewing in Clinical Supervision
Many clinical supervision models identify 3 stages of supervisee development: Beginning, Middle, and Advanced.