Social workers are put into hard state of affairss on a regular footing. The Health and attention professions council ( HCPC ) set guidelines to help the challenges societal workers face. To stay registered, a societal worker demands to stay by the HCPC codification of moralss to guarantee bringing of the best possible service for users. Working within the guidelines set can be disputing as it may do struggle with the service users values or potentially the societal workers ain values. For the intent of this essay, moralss will be defined as “ professional duties and regulations of behavior ” ( Meacham, 2007 ) .
Social work values will be defined as “ a scope of beliefs about what is regarded as worthy or valuable in a societal work context ” ( BASW, 2012 p17 ) . This essay focuses on two countries of the personalisation agenda that can do challenges for societal workers ; adjustment and personal budgets. The mark service user group for the intents of this essay is people with disablements. Using the definition stated in the Equality Act, ( 2010 ) “ A individual is considered handicapped if they have a physical or mental damage that has a ‘substantial ‘ and ‘long-term ‘ negative consequence on their ability to make normal day-to-day activities ” .
Legislation and demands to back up grownups with disablements is increasing for the “ over 11 million people with a restricting long term unwellness, damage or disablement in Great Britain ” ( office for disablement issues, 2012 ) . However, handicapped people report assorted feelings and reactions to the statute laws and regulations put in topographic point sing their attention and allowances ( Dalley, 1991 ) .
The societal philosophical attacks to societal work will be used to cover with the challenges and struggles societal workers face. This essay touches upon Kant ‘s deontology ; Bentham ‘s and Mills utilitarianism and Biestek ‘s 7 rules attack.
Immanuel Kant ( 1785 ) developed the theory of deontology. This means that societal workers need to be advancing good actions and the right motivation, nevertheless the effect is non of import and the thought of an acceptable motivation is capable to opinion ( Adapted by Hartsell, 2006 ; Banks, 2001 ; Reiman, 2009 ; Meacham, 2008 ) . Subsequently, Kant introduced the thought of a categorical jussive mood ( CI ) . A CI maintains a individual ‘s motivations for their actions and they hence should be acceptable as a cosmopolitan jurisprudence. A Therefore people should move on motivations that can be used by everyone in a moral society and lead to esteem for people ( Darwell, 2002 cited in Reiman, 2009 ) . From this it is seen that people should be treated as an terminal, for illustration a pick or desire, instead than a agency ( object ) to our ain terminals. He believed that everyone should be treated with respect regardless of their features or behavior ( Banks, 2001 ) .
Kant negotiations about regard for the single individual and advancing self – finding. Biestek ( 1961 ) produced 7 rules that over clip have become extremely influential to societal workers looking at values and moralss within their pattern. 5 chief rules have been used:
Individualization ; Recognition that each service user has alone qualities, good and bad.
Purposeful look of feeling ; Recognition that service users need to show their feelings ( particularly negative 1s ) freely.
Credence ; The societal worker should be able to work with a service user without go throughing opinion and accepting Persons for who they are, including their strengths and their failings.
Non – judgemental attitude ; Social workers should be able to non go through opinion or assign guilt to the service user. It is about judging the service users behaviour
User self – finding ; the societal worker should be able to steer the service user, depending on their on their capacity, to hold freedom in doing their ain determinations and picks ( Adapted by Banks, 2001 ) .
Utilitarianism focuses on a consequentialist attack as it focuses on the effects of the action, instead than the actions themselves. ( Scheffler, 1994 cited in Reiman, 2009 ) . Decisions should be made on the consequences and effects it could hold on society instead than on a personal and single footing, and to advance maximal good within society. The right action produces the greatest balance of good over evil – the rule of public-service corporation. ( Banks, 2001 ) . Utilitarianism is based on a theory developed by Bentham and Mills who looked into two subdivisions of utilitarianism ; hedonic and ideal utilitarianism. Bentham explored hedonic utilitarianism, where good was matched with felicity. Mills explored the thought of ideal utilitarianism. This focused on good being about virtuousnesss, truth and cognition, non merely felicity. ( Banks, 2001 ) . The theory promotes the greatest good for the greatest figure of people. When doing a determination it is imperative that the effect is considered. Therefore as a societal worker, it would be good to look at the effects of the extroverted action and measure what would be most good and least harmful to the service user.
In the late 1980 ‘s, the Government recognised that an betterment in entree to community services was required. The Government were committed to supplying more support for people with long term demands by helping and back uping persons to pull off their conditions and supplying services they require in the community instead than in long-stay infirmaries. ( Oliver, 1996 ) Morris ( 1993 ) conducted a survey that looked into handicapped persons who needed twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours services. He found that handicapped persons were get downing to experience a sense of hopelessness and weakness when seeking to entree statutory services. Historically, societal workers assessed and told service users what services they needed. Through the personalisation docket, and the debut of direct payments, service users told the societal worker their demands. For the first clip, the societal worker had to accept the service user ‘s self-assessment and so utilize the appraisal to see if the highlighted issues were eligible under Fair Access to Care ( 2003 ) statute law. Direct payments were introduced in 1997 and societal workers had to interpret service user needs into a pecuniary value to enable them to buy their ain service. The purpose was to give persons command over their attention and their lives. Direct payments evolved into personalised budgets and have further evolved into a more individualized budget / service program. The demand for alteration and equality of service proviso has been recognised as more positions are being voiced by people with disablements. In line with Beistek ‘s theory, service users are utilizing purposeful look of feeling and self-government to enable the societal workers to cognize their wants and needs. This has resulted in alterations which could cut down the potency for struggle in the hereafter.
A farther challenge is budgetary control. Service users frequently want services that are financially unavailable to them. Although moralss province that service users should be encouraged to hold self- finding, be treated as a whole and the societal worker should advance and supply information sing their attention ( BASW, 2012 ) , the service users pick can non ever be guaranteed. Utilitarianism would propose that this is because if service users ever received the services they wanted, the societal worker would non be advancing the greatest good for the greatest figure, alternatively would be taking a more Kantian attack of advancing moral good. These two philosophical attacks cause struggle within themselves.
The Mental Capacity Act ( 2005 ) says “ a individual lacks capacity in relation to a affair if at the stuff clip he is unable to do a determination for himself in relation to the affair because of an damage of, or a perturbation in the operation of, the head or encephalon ” . ( s2 ) . This leads to challenges and struggles for societal workers. If the service user had capacity, there could be conflict over the manner they spend their budget which could take to the societal worker handling that single without regard. Following the BASW codification of moralss ( 2012 ) , it states that societal workers should esteem the right to self-government. Kant would back up this position as, by the societal worker back uping the person to run into their ain self-defined demands, the societal worker is advancing good actions that will in bend produce good results for the person. The societal worker demands to recognize that the person has human rights and freedom to voice their positions. Burton ( 1996 ) showed that there was a failure to recognize the unequal power dealingss between the societal worker in control of proviso of services and the service user who relies on the services. This therefore would sabotage Beistek ‘s rules of self-government as, although the service user is voicing their sentiment, the societal worker is non listening and this could be seen as endangering the rules of personalisation and the codification of moralss that are imperative. The execution of The Mental Capacity Act needs to be reviewed to guarantee workers are following statute law and moralss. It should non be assumed person lacks capacity because they have a disablement.
On the other manus, if the service user did n’t hold capacity, it could do struggle between the societal worker and the paid carer and/or unpaid carers. If the service user lacks capacity, how would the societal worker or the carers be able to measure what was best for the person? A societal worker would hold to uphold and promote human self-respect and wellbeing every bit good as authorising the person. ( BASW, 2012 ) . These moralss and values are supported by Beistek ‘s theory. Workers need to handle the service user with regard, be non -judgemental and accept the state of affairs the service user may be in. The societal worker hence would merely be able to move upon their appraisal which should include the carer ‘s positions on what is best for the service user. Utilitarianism, an alternate statement, would reason what ‘s the greatest good for the greatest figure? What would profit the service user more? The societal workers positions or the carer ‘s positions? The results need to guarantee that the maximal people are happy. The societal worker could make the maximal felicity and cut down struggle by utilizing authorization. The societal worker would esteem the demands and penchants of the service user, via the carers and household members every bit good as recognizing their ain biass to guarantee the correct services are offered. The Community Care Act ( 1990 ) promotes attention in the community and people remaining within their ain place, leting the person to utilize their personal budget and have carers to advance independency. There is grounds to propose for illustration, persons who have fractured a limb, menu better when they recuperate in their ain places. ( Pignolo, Keenan and Hebela, 2011 ) .
Adjustment is a major concern for many service users ( Davis and Wainwright, 1996 ) . One facet that could do struggle is the pattern of puting immature people in immature disablement units, belongingss that are specifically designed for people with learning disablements. Although this could be seen as a solution for people to interact and hold support, there is a possible struggle as the person can non take where they want to populate and may populate a distance from family/friends. If placed in a intent built constitution, the persons are classed as being housed by the local authorization and hence do non acquire to take alternate locations ( Oliver, 1996 ) . The quandary for the societal worker is the demand to take the persons positions into history whilst equilibrating their demands and wants, peculiarly if the service user lacks the capacity to do the determination.
It is improper for anyone to subscribe a occupancy understanding on behalf of an person who lacks capacity. A capacity appraisal needs to be undertaken to guarantee the service user understands how to keep that occupancy. In order to continue, an application needs to be made to The Court of Protection. This could take to conflict as the societal worker and lodging section demand to continue the jurisprudence, nevertheless many households feel they have the right to subscribe a occupancy for their handicapped household member and happen it hard to accept that this is non the instance. Harmonizing to BASW ( 2012 ) , the societal worker demands to develop professional relationships with the service user and the household, uphold the repute and values of the profession every bit good as recognizing diverseness and handling the person as a whole. Utilitarianism would urge looking at what benefits the whole household, instead than merely the service user. Challenges arise when the service user lacks capacity. Using the useful attack, it could be said that the service user should n’t be given a occupancy as it does n’t advance the greatest good for the greatest figure. This position is in struggle with BASW codifications of moralss. It could be seen as unethical pattern and lead to farther struggle. Beistek would back up the position of BASW in utilizing the specific value base that service users should be allowed to freely show their feelings, both positive and negative, and the societal worker should listen and do a determination in an accepting and non-judgemental manner. However, Kant would state that although the effect of non acquiring a pick in where the service user lives is a negative result, the purpose of puting them in a place, with other people to socialize is a good moral opinion that is entirely profiting the person.
Another possible struggle could be older handicapped persons being forced into attention. The Sutherland Report ( 1999 ) claimed that older handicapped people were being forced into institutional attention excessively early due to the deficiency of alternate attention at place. Sixsmith and Sixsmith ( 2008 ) provided grounds that by 2008 there had been a displacement in attention proviso and that the Personalisation Agenda meant that people were staying in their place for longer and having appropriate services. However there is a farther potency for struggle when suiting people, with disablements, to remain in their places. Persons may desire to turn old at place but is this possible for people with significantly reduced mobility? Many places are unaccessible to wheelchair users and those with important mobility damages ( Burns, 2004 ) . There is a Government strategy whereby handicapped people can use for a handicapped installation grant to hold their places adapted, and certain persons have to re-pay the Government, therefore the Government is non financing expensive attention bundles. The function of the societal worker would be to negociate, support and authorise the service user to hold their demands met in the most appropriate, coveted manner. Harmonizing to Kant ‘s theory, holding a loan is the moral good as people will be able to stay at place for longer, advancing felicity and community attention. This would be supported by the values of BASW which states societal workers need to handle the service user as a whole and respect their right to self-government. In contrast to Kant ‘s theory, Utilitarianism would see weighing up the effects of taking the service user from their house and into an altered and safe environment. I.e. a attention place could be seen as an easier option for handicapped people to have attention. This position could do struggle because the societal worker is traveling against the wants and desires of the service user. Utilitarianism looks at the best result for society instead than on an single degree. Therefore, by traveling persons out of the house into the attention place may supply maximal felicity for society, although it disregards the person ‘s positions and sentiments. This is a unfavorable judgment of the theoretical account as many service users could potentially non hold their demands met in a mode that is acceptable to them due to the focal point being on the benefit to society. This could be peculiarly true e.g. for people with English as a 2nd linguistic communication or who follow a spiritual religion. However, Beistek would hold with Kant in advancing self-government.
A cardinal subject running throughout this essay is respect for the single individual as a ego – finding being. Both Kant and Beistek promote this and hence look to be the societal philosophical theoretical accounts best tailored towards societal work values and moralss. There are clear struggles between traditional societal work and the personalisation docket for people with disablements. These struggles have been reduced with the debut of HCPC moralss. If the societal worker systematically uses these theories whilst working with struggle and disputing service users so the BASW moralss will be maintained and the service users will have the best appropriate service available within Fair entree to care standards.