Ethics
Definition, principles, ethical conduct, ethical dilemmas, ethics and AI, ethical mistakes, ethics in group work
This page has seven sections:
1. Background Material
2. Suggestions for Practice
3. References
4. Appendix 1: Additional Models of Ethical decision Making
5. Appendix 2: Ethical Issues and Artificial Intelligence (AI)
6. Appendix 3: Ethics in Group Work.
7. Appendix 4: Dealing with Ethical Mistakes.
Feedback welcome.
Background Material
Values and Ethics
Ethics, essentially, are practical rules or principles that guide professional behaviour. They flow from people’s rights, community rights and personal and societal values (Weber & Pockett, 2011).
There is broad agreement across the social work profession on the core values that form the basis of ethical decision making. These values include:
• valuing humanity, which encompasses respect for the individual’s unique characteristics within their social context;
• valuing positive change, which requires belief in the potential for development and transformation;
• valuing choice, which involves recognising self-determination, autonomy, and empowerment;
• valuing quality service, which entails competence, integrity, honesty, accountability, transparency, prudence, reliability, and impartiality;
• valuing privacy, which recognises the right to privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity; and
• valuing difference, which encompasses respect for diversity beyond mere tolerance (McAuliffe & Greenslade, 2025).
There is also broad agreement about the ethics of social work as detailed in the various publications from Associations of Social Workers in different countries. For example, the Australian Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics (AASW, 2020) outlines appropriate ethical conduct for social workers to follow:
• With service users—prioritise service users’ interests, enable self-determination and informed consent, maintain privacy and confidentiality, record interactions and terminate service appropriately, and maintain appropriate professional boundaries. Following an appropriate ethical decision making process is essential to implementing the above.
• With colleagues—show respect, collaborate, be aware of issues—personal and colleague—that could impact on professional judgement and take appropriate action, address misconduct.
• In service organisations—carry out aims and objectives, provide best possible service, promote rights of service users, work to effect change to policies and procedures when necessary, uphold the ethical principles of the Code of Ethics, manage conscientious objection appropriately.
• When in private practice—advise of fee schedules and manage payments appropriately; maintain practice records; maintain adequate professional indemnity and public-liability insurance, protect service user’s confidentiality, receive appropriate supervision.
• With social work students—provide appropriate training in accordance with the Code of Ethics, ensure regular supervision is in place, adhere to principles of privacy and confidentiality, evaluate performance fairly, ensue students are practice-ready on qualification completion.
Values and ethics operate in all aspects of social work practice. They guide social workers when they have to make choices among a range of possible actions (O’Connor et al., 2008). Ethics can also be considered as an attempt to address the behaviour in the powerful (such as politicians, corporations and uncommitted workers) in the interests of the less powerful. (There is little talk of a need for codes of ethics for prisoners, indigenous people, residents of nursing homes, families in poverty, people with disabilities and other less powerful groups.) Historically it has been the poor and disadvantaged who have called for such constraints, and for rules though which the powerful can be held to account (Ife, 2012).
Code of Ethics
A Code of Ethics (mentioned above) is primarily a statement of the values and beliefs of a particular professional group and is designed to serve the interests of that group and to protect the public. They comprise general principles, applicable to a broad range of situations, providing benchmarks against which practice may be judged. A Code of Ethics is a key resource in resolving inevitable dilemmas of practice (O’Connor et al., 2008; Weber & Pockett, 2011).
The functions of a Codes of Ethics are to:
• establish guidelines for professional behaviour
• assist in establishing a professional identity
• provide for self-regulating measures
• protect clients from incompetent practitioners
• protect workers from malpractice lawsuits (O’Connor et al., 2008).
Codes cannot solve dilemmas. Professional judgement does that by drawing on a worker’s reflective abilities and contextualised knowledge about values, ethics, principles, the professional code and decision-making frameworks (Weber & Pockett, 2011).
Ethical dilemmas are discussed later in this post.
Principles
The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW, 2020) in its Code of Ethics suggests social workers are bound by three core principles:
1. Respect for persons—every human being has a unique and inherent equal worth, and each person has a right to wellbeing, self-fulfillment and self-determination and a sustainable environment.
2. Promote and uphold social justice—uphold human rights; establish structures that rest on equality of persons; protect the natural environment; promote community participation.
3. Professional integrity—prioritise the needs of others; advocate for the responsible use of power and authority; engage in reflective self-awareness; accountability for and transparency of judgements and actions; engage in lifelong learning (AASW, 2020).
In its Code of Ethics, the British Association of Social Workers (BASW, 2021) considers the above three principles more as values and attaches a number of principles to each:
1. Respect for persons—uphold and promote human dignity and wellbeing; promote the right to participation; respect the right to self-determination; work holistically; identify and develop strengths.
2. Promote and uphold social justice—challenge oppression; distribute resources; challenge unjust policies and practices; respect diversity, work in solidarity.
3. Professional integrity—uphold the values and reputation of the profession; be trustworthy; make considered professional judgements; maintain professional boundaries, be transparent and professionally accountable.
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW, 2021) identifies values and attaches an ethical principle to each value. The values identified are service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity and competence.
The principles outlined in the above Codes of Ethics refer to people’s rights. In implementing a human rights approach Ife (2012) suggests an important principle is to allow the service user to be an active participant in the decision making process. Ife points out that it is easy for the professional, with their specialised insight and expertise, to reinforce the powerlessness of service users rather than protecting their rights. In other words, a concentration on ethics, while safeguarding the interests of the client, can define and reinforce relationships of power and domination if the client is given no role in ethical decision-making.
Ethical Dilemmas—Definition and Examples
What is an ethical dilemma?
An ethical dilemma exists when two or more relevant, but often contradictory ethical principles compete/conflict with one another, each requiring a different (and often opposing) course of action; in general, ethical dilemmas cannot be resolved simply (Kiser, 2016; O’Connor et al., 2008; Weber & Pockett, 2011; Ylyisakar & Rugkasa, 2022).
Example—Discharge Planning (Kiser, 2016)
Discharge planning in a hospital illustrates how context can affect ethical decisions. Different players have different needs—what does the patient want? What does the family want? What does the doctor want? What does the hospital administrator want? What does the employing organisation think would truly be the best plan for this patient?
These discharge decisions are loaded with ethical issues about safety for the patient, self-determination, fulfilling a responsibility to the employer, and more. It is not uncommon to have patients whose physical conditions are very similar going in entirely different directions at discharge.
The trickiest part ethically for the discharge planners is the position to adopt in all the conversations. Do they side with one point of view or another? How do they decide where to lean if they’re going to lean one way or the other? How do they respond to the different pressures being put on them? What do they say when they are asked by a family member, “What would you do if this were your mother?”
Even though all of these pressures are almost always there, each situation is different and so different outcomes and decisions are made—none of them unethical—just different. There is often not one clear right answer in most of these situations.
Example—Confidentiality (Swain, 2009)
In essence, a commitment to the principle of confidentiality begins with an expectation that information will be used for the purpose for which it was given, will not be disclosed without authority, will no longer be retained when the original purpose has ended, and will be correct and current. However, social workers can never responsibly claim to guarantee absolute confidentiality to their service users. For most practical purposes an effective guarantee to confidentiality can be given but needs to be carefully offered so as to reassure service users about how information will be used. For example,
This discussion is confidential. The only people who will see/know about it are my supervisor and my colleagues, and they are bound by the same confidentiality principles as me. In some circumstances legal proceedings can force me to reveal confidential information, but that would not happen without my discussing it with you first (Swain, 2009, p. 41).
There are some situations where disclosure of what might be considered to be absolutely confidential information cannot be avoided.
Situations where consent to disclosure of information is implied Consent to disclosure of confidential information is necessary when a referral to another agency, service or professional is being negotiated, even when that referral is being arranged with the agreement of the service user involved.
Situations when disclosure of information is required
These include the duty to warn where risk to others is foreseen, obligations imposed by legislation (e.g. public health reporting requirements in relation to notifiable diseases, child abuse when reasonably suspected), serious criminal activity, the production of documents in response to a validly executed subpoena, answering questions under oath in legal proceedings, and Centrelink requests for information that are in line with the empowering legislation.
Situations when disclosure of information is prohibited Mandatory reporting legislation prohibits disclosure of the source of reports made to child protection authorities. There are strict legislative requirements regarding disclosure of the identity of the parties to an adoption (Swain, 2009).
All of the above can present social workers with an ethical dilemma.
Example—Professional paternalism (Weber & Pockett, 2011)
Professional paternalism arises when social workers intervene in such a way as to direct the client’s right to self-determination. Paternalism can occur in three different forms:
• The social worker believes that it is justifiable to withhold information from clients for their own good—for example, certain diagnostic information, information about their mental health state and prognosis.
• The social worker lies to the client for the client’s own good, in contrast to merely withholding information—for example telling a child, after parental separation, that their father wants to continue seeing them when, in fact, that does not appear to be the case.
• The social worker physically interferes with clients, against their wishes, for their own good—for example, forcing individuals to receive medical treatment to reside in a shelter against their wishes.
Example—Neoliberalism (Ylvisakar & Rugkasa, 2022)
Many argue that Neoliberalism has led to social work practice being defined and regulated more by political and administrative requirements than by professional values, theories, skills and methods. The social problems social workers are tasked with addressing are increasingly presented to them as resulting from their client’s shortcomings rather than structural problems in society. Furthermore, social workers are also held individually responsible for organisations’ goal attainment.
As a result, social workers experience conflicts of loyalty between what they consider to be professionally sound practice, the needs of clients’ and what colleagues, managers, organisations and/or superior authorities expect of them. This often leads to the client perspective being challenged by the system perspective. For example, a social worker may feel a certain course of action is best for a mother and child. However, this course of action does not correspond with the institution’s family guidance norms. The result is an ethical dilemma. Should the social worker be loyal to her colleagues and the institution’s practice, or should the social worker be loyal to his/her own professional assessment about what was best for the mother and child? If most weight is given to consideration for the child, this will be incompatible with the efficiency requirement, while if the latter carries most weight, this will be to the detriment of the child (Ylvisakar & Rugkasa, 2022).
Other areas that create ethical dilemmas include:
• Financial conditions and allocations that place constraints on the type of measures that can be implemented—social workers can find that the measures they regard as right cannot be implemented due to insufficient funding.
• Institutional procedures and norms that influence social workers’ freedom of manoeuvre and may conflict with social work ideals and trigger cross-pressures (Ylvisakar & Rugkasa, 2022).
Graves (2016) points out that neoliberalism has created tension between ethics that lean toward social justice and ethics that serve to maintain social work’s professional status in a capitalist context. For example, conflicts between empowering the vulnerable, and adherence to the law are live within social work, and manifest in emerging ethical issues, such as whether or not social workers should support undocumented immigrants.
Engaging in critical reflection, supervision and further education can provide social workers with tools to manage power relations in social work practice. These approaches may enable social workers to recognise and address what is within and what is outside their area of responsibility and what they can be expected to do or not to do (Ylvisakar & Rugkasa, 2022).
Working Through Ethical Dilemmas
Recently McAuliffe and Greenslade (2025) revisited the work of McAuliffe and Chenoweth (2008) reminding readers that ethical models of decision making can be grouped into three distinct categories. These categories with examples cited by the authors are outlined below.
1. Process or linear models are those that provide clearly defined steps or stages to work through. Whilst these models are very useful for the practical exploration of a dilemma, they lack a reflective element, and cultural issues are generally not acknowledged. Examples of process or linear models include the ETHIC and ETHICA models, the seven-step model, Dolgoff et al.’s multi-levelled model, the ETHICS-A model, the PLUS model and the Quality Decision Making online tool.
2. A second category of ethical decision-making models can be described as ‘reflective’ because making decisions in these models requires a strong focus on the intuitive, and not just the rational. Reflective models are often based on feminist perspectives, consider issues of power, and involve the exploration of whether to include clients in the decision-making process. These models also build in steps for self-reflection, consideration of feelings and acknowledge the importance of relationships and the primacy of relationality.
3. The final ‘category’ is referred to as ‘cultural models’ as they prioritise the cultural context of the decision making and advocate consultation with cultural experts to ascertain cultural values and world views. Garcia et al’s Transcultural Integrative Model of ethical decision making is one such example from the field of counselling.
McAuliffe and Greenslade (2025) then proceed to outline their inclusive model of ethical decision making, an outline incorporating the above three approaches and built on the original model of McAuliffe and Chenoweth (2008). A description of this inclusive model follows. If interested, some other models proposed by other writers are included in Appendix 1 at the end of this post.
The Inclusive Model of Ethical Decision Making
The inclusive model of ethical decision making includes five dimensions: accountability, consultation, cultural sensitivity, and critical reflection (from 2008), with interdependence added in 2025. Interdependence is founded on the belief that no entity exists in complete isolation from others and, as such, actions have far-reaching impacts on, for example, the environment, non-humans, and climate change (McAuliffe & Greenslade, 2025).
Note: The original article illustrates and elaborates the steps that follow using a scenario.
Step 1: defining the ethical dilemma
To identify an ethical dilemma, the competing ethical principles must be clearly defined. The process of identifying these principles is referred to as ‘dilemma formulation’. It is necessary to understand and state these principles before any further progress can be made. Questions to ask during this step might include:
• Can I clearly define competing ethical principles in this situation? If so, what are they? If not, do I need to consult with an appropriate other to clarify my thoughts? (consultation)
• Are issues of culture involved here? (consultation; cultural sensitivity, interdependence).
• If I determine that this is an ethical dilemma, where am I placed within it?
• Is it my role to make a decision, or should this situation be referred to someone with higher authority? (accountability)
• Is this situation familiar to me or do I need new knowledge? Can I draw on past experience or on what I have learnt from work in other contexts? (critical reflection)
Step 2: mapping legitimacy
Deciding who has a legitimate place in the decision-making process is not always easy. Some people who should be included are excluded, and others who should not be involved may be engaged in discussions. Cultural factors, such as extended family or kin in the case of indigenous clients, should be considered. The practitioner needs to determine if the ethical dilemma should be shared with the client. The questions that could be asked at this stage include:
• Who has legitimacy in this situation? Who is included and who is excluded? Are there any cultural factors to consider (e.g. extended family or kin in the case of indigenous clients)? (cultural sensitivity, interdependence)
• Is it appropriate to share this ethical dilemma with others? Is this an ethical dilemma that I am facing alone, or are others also involved? Who should be talking to whom at this stage? (consultation; accountability; critical reflection)
• Are there non-human interests that need to be considered, such as local wildlife and the natural environment? (interdependence)
Step three: gathering information
Practitioners amass a great deal of information from managing case after case and become more familiar with policy and procedures over time. However, practitioners may not always be clear about what codes of ethics dictate, what research has found, or what case law exists when confronted with unusual situations. Questions to ask include:
• What guidance is provided by professional codes of ethics, protocols, policies or procedures, and are there any legal considerations? (accountability)
• Are there any conflicts between personal values, professional requirements, and organisational mandates, and are these conflicts likely to present problems for the decision maker or others? (critical reflection)
• Do other resources that could shed light on this dilemma such as research, literature, or the experiences of others exist? (consultation, critical reflection)
• Who could be consulted at this stage for the acquisition of new knowledge, or for clarification of positions taken by ethical codes, policies or law? (consultation)
• Is specific cultural knowledge or knowledge of the environment and other species required, and if so, who should be consulted for this? (cultural sensitivity, interdependence)
• What are the relationships between those who have legitimacy in this dilemma and in what ways are they dependent on each other to the point where any decision made may impact all of them? (interdependence)
Step 4: alternative approaches and action
The principle of ‘do no harm’ should be followed. It is not always possible to foresee future harm, and problems that come from ‘left field’ are always a possibility. Alternatives to the chosen course of action should be considered. The final decision should be made after careful consideration of all factors. Some questions that can guide decision making at this stage include:
• What are the available courses of action now that I have gathered knowledge and information and considered the range of value positions? (accountability)
• On what basis will I make this decision and how will I justify my actions? (accountability)
• Am I missing other alternatives, and how can I be sure that I have weighed up all the options? Who can I talk to about this and can someone else play ‘devil’s advocate’ to help me clarify my position? (consultation)
• Are any of these options culturally discriminatory, insensitive, speciest or damaging to the environment? (cultural sensitivity, interdependence)
• How do I feel about the decision I have come to, and is there anything I need to do differently? Can I live with this decision, and can I justify it if called upon? How do I implement and document this decision? (critical reflection; accountability)
Step 5: critical analysis and evaluation
Practitioners may choose to engage in self-reflection or seek feedback from others. However, it is essential to consider who one consults with, as it is easier to seek advice from those who are unlikely to offer different or challenging perspectives. Some questions that can assist this process include:
• What have I learnt from this situation about the way I make decisions and have I changed my behaviour from previous decision-making patterns? (critical reflection)
• Do I feel confident that I acted in a culturally sensitive manner throughout the process or were there any aspects of culture that I neglected to explore? (cultural sensitivity)
• Do I feel confident that I have taken into consideration all parties involved, including non-human animals and the environment? Did I consider the interdependent relationships that may have been affected by my decision? (interdependence)
• Did I use consultation and support wisely, and who did I choose to talk with about the ethical dilemma? Were there others that I could, or should, have contacted for information? (consultation)
• Are there issues that I need to bring attention to in relation to deficits in organisational policies/procedures, ethical codes or other processes that impact negatively on service users? At the end of the day, can I own my decision and confidently discuss my actions and take responsibility for my own part in the decision-making process? (accountability)
Further information, in the form of four appendices, has been included at the end of this post.
Appendix 1: Additional Models of Ethical decision Making
Appendix 2: Ethical Issues and Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Appendix 3: Ethics in Group Work.
Appendix 4: Dealing with Ethical Mistakes.
Suggestions for Practice
Use the outline of the various Social Worker Associations’ Code of Ethics (in the ‘Values and Ethics’ and ‘Principles’ sections) to critically reflect on one’s own practice approach to clients, colleagues and organisations. In particular Ife’s comment about the importance of including service users as active participants in any decision making process (including ethical dilemmas) is worth reflecting on critically.
Develop a clear understanding around how to manage confidentiality with clients. The example outlined in the ‘Ethical Dilemmas – Definition and Examples’, along with discussion in supervision, may help.
The impact of neoliberal policies on social work is an emerging trend that needs critical reflection and discussion in supervision.
In the Background Material and Appendices, a number of options are presented for use by social workers when faced with an ethical dilemma. The inclusive model (McAuliffe and Greenslade) is a recent approach and one that includes the three categories of ethical decision-making models. It appears a comprehensive approach, and one that will be gradually refined by social workers as they apply it to the variety of ethical dilemmas that they face in practice.
The work by Reamer (2023) on ethics and artificial intelligence (Appendix 2) is worth reflecting on as AI will increasingly become part of social work practice.
References
AASW: Australian Association of Social Workers. (2020). Code of Ethics. https://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/1201
Barsky, A. (2013). Ethics alive! Whoops! Practice errors and the ethics of follow-up. Retrieved from http://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-articles/Ethics_Alive%21_Whoops%21_Practice_Errors_and_the_Ethics_of_Follow-Up/
BASW: British Association of Social Workers. (2021). The BASW code of ethics for social work. https://basw.co.uk/policy-practice/standards/code-ethics
Cleak, H., & Wilson, J. (2013). Making the most of field placement (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning Australia.
Graves, J. S. (2016). Ethical dilemmas in clinical social work practice: How are social workers affected and how do we respond? Smith College, Northampton, MA. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/theses/1693
Ife, J. (2012). Human rights and social work: Towards rights-based practice (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Kiser, P. M. (2016). The human services internship: Getting the most from your experience (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.
McAuliffe, D., & Chenoweth, L. (2008). Leave no stone left unturned: The inclusive model of ethical decision making. Ethics and Social Welfare, 2(1), 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496530801948739
McAuliffe, D., & Greenslade, L. (2025). Turn it and turn it again: The updated inclusive model of ethical decision making. Ethics and Social Welfare. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2025.2483668
NASW: National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics
O’Connor, I., Wilson, J., Setterlund, D., & Hughes, M. (2008). Social work and human service practice (5th ed.). Pearson Longman.
Reamer, F. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in Social Work: Emerging Ethical Issues. International Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 20(2), 52-71. https://doi.org/10.55521/10-020-205
Swain, P. (2009). The ethics of social work practice. In P. Swain & S. Rice (Eds), In the shadow of the law (3rd ed.) (pp. 36-63). The Freedom Press.
Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. (2014). Pearson new international education: An introduction to group work practice. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Weber, Z., & Pockett, R. (2011). Professional values and ethical practice. In A. O’Hara & R.
Pockett, R. (Eds.), Skills for human service practice: Working with individuals, groups and communities (2nd ed.), (pp. 20 - 42). Oxford University Press.
Ylvisakar, S., & Rugkasa, M. (2022). Dilemmas and conflicting pressures in social work practice. European Journal of Social Work, 25(4), 643-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2021.1954884
Appendix 1
Additional Models of Ethical Decision Making
Graves (2016) suggests the Strom-Gottfried six-step model is relevant when faced with an ethical dilemma. The strategy involves asking questions in the categories, who, what, when, where, why, and how.
The "who" category guides practitioners to ask who can be helpful, and advocates consulting supervisors and experts for help generating and evaluating options.
The "what “category acts as a guide for asking what additional information is needed, what alternatives might be available, and what each choice may mean for those involved.
The "when" category asks the practitioner to think about when s/he has faced a similar experience, come across relevant reading, and whether there have been any policies developed in relation to this issue.
The "where" category asks where ethical and clinical guidelines lead.
The "why" category invites the practitioner to examine his or her motives.
The "how “category reminds the practitioner that process matters, and that it is important to use professional skills such as empathy, strategy, communication, and cultural sensitivity in implementing the decision.
——————————-
The Ethical Assessment Scheme proposes an hierarchy of ethical values that are ranked 1 to 7 in priority order and considered in this order (Kiser, 2016).
Ethical Principal 1: Protection of life. Professionals must protect human life.
Ethical Principle 2: Principle of social justice. Although fairness (treating all people the same) is an important value, professionals must also take into consideration issues of relative power and vulnerability among the people involved as they relate to the issue at hand. The social justice principle is complex because the professional must discern when the principle of “treating everyone the same” must be placed in a secondary position to achieve greater social equality and social justice.
Ethical Principle 3: Principle of client’s autonomy and freedom. The professional’s decisions and actions respect the right of the individual to make his or her own choices and foster the individual’s ability to function independently.
Ethical Principle 4: Principle of least harm. The professional should honour the principle of beneficence by following the principle of doing good and avoiding harm.
Ethical Principle 5: Principle of quality of life. The professional’s actions should enhance the quality of life for the client and for others.
Ethical Principle 6: Principle of privacy and confidentiality. The professional should protect confidentiality and respect the privacy of the client’s home, personal life, relationships and information.
Ethical Principle 7: Principle of truthfulness and full disclosure. The processional should report all information fully and accurately to clients and others who are authorised to have access to that information.
—————————-
Cleak and Wilson (2013) suggest that taking the following steps may help beginning social workers cope with ethical issues:
1. Define the ethical issue(s). The way the issue is defined gives the worker a clear direction and encourages them to explore the situation further (e.g. a worker may want to distribute resources based on a client’s merit or need, rather than distribute the resources in equal shares).
2. Gather useful information from books, from the Internet, or by analysing the situation itself or discussing it with others.
3. Identify broad ethical principles that could guide action.
4. Refer to the profession’s Code of Ethics or the agency’s Code of Conduct for guidance.
5. Think about the client’s worldview and hopes, society’s values and personal values. Quite often it is the worker’s values that have the most impact on how situations are defined and resolved, yet reflective practice depends on one’s ability as a worker to take these factors into account and subject one’s values to the scrutiny of others.
6. Define options and arrive at a resolution. The options must be real and possible. In reflecting on the ethical basis of practice, social workers need to keep an open mind and entertain a range of possible outcomes.
——————————
A position from Ife (2012) on the problem with Codes of Ethics: The assumption around the code of ethics is that, if used properly, it will guide social workers to the right answer to any problem. This is quintessential modernity and an absurd declaration in the eyes of postmodernism with the practice of most social workers bearing this out—the Code of Ethics cannot provide the answer in some situations. In fact codes of ethics can play a controlling role within the profession because they are written by a small group and approved by another group. These are all essentially political acts that portray a certain type of social work practice as preferred and reflect certain assumptions about ideology of practice. The establishment of alternative codes tacitly acknowledges this: codes of ethics for radical social workers, for indigenous social workers, for social workers of colour, and so on. This is consistent with the postmodern perception of the impossibility of a single code and it may be better to legitimise a multiplicity of codes.
—————————-
While no precise formula for resolving ethical dilemmas exists, systematically following a series fo steps will ensure the all aspects of the ethical dilemma are addressed. The following is an example of one of the ethical decision-making models that exist (Weber & Pockett, 2011):
Identify the ethical issues, including the social work values and duties that conflict
Identify the individuals, groups, and organisations likely to be affected by the ethical decision
Identify all viable courses of action and the participants involved in each, along with the potential benefits and risks for each.
Examine the reasons in favour of and opposed to each course of action, considering relevant:
code of ethics
social work theories and principles
ethical theories and approaches
personal values and cultural and socio-political ideologies, including those that conflict with one’s own
consultation with colleagues, supervisors, and other experts.
Make the decision and commence the implementation process
——————————-
O’Connor et al. (2008) outline the Bioethical Perspective (unranked) model in some detail. It is one of the process models referred to by McAuliffee and Greenslade (2025) in the Background Material section above.
Principle 1 Respect for autonomy. Informed individuals have a right to make decisions about their bodies and health care, even if their decisions may impact negatively on their health, functioning and life.
Principle 2 Nonmaleficence. One ought to do no harm.
Principle 3 Beneficence. Obligation to actively pursue the welfare of others.
Principle 4 Justice. Available resources should be distributed fairly and equitably without prejudice, bias or discrimination.
Related rules:
Confidentiality—recognises the private, sensitive nature of the relationship and encourages trust with personal information.
Truthfulness—requires that the patient have access to all relevant information about his/her care in a sensitive, open and honest manner.
Informed consent—requires health care staff to obtain the patient’s express consent to be treated after the patient has bee fully informed of the benefits and risk of treatment.
——————————
O’Connor et al. (2008) also suggest the following approach to solving an ethical dilemma.
1. Define the ethical problem
Sort through all the contextual and specific information identify the the ethical issue or issues. These are usually stated as a choice between two mutually exclusive courses of action such as confidentiality versus a duty to warn. The way an ethical problem is defined provides a direction for the rest of the work, leading to exploring some issues and ignoring others. It is important to consult with others to establish there is an ethical dilemma and the social worker has the required level of authority and expertise to deal with it.
2. Gathering information, including consulting others
Good ethical decision making rests on appropriate research in texts, with colleagues and with the person or people concerned. When social workers recognise the moral dilemmas and hence take a wider view of what is relevant information they will gather different information from workers who simply “follow the rules”. Workers also need to be aware of the legal dimensions of a situation, the extent and limits of the worker’s rights and the rights of others to act or not act within legislation. The clear message is to consult with others, including seeking legal advice if necessary.
3. Examining the ethical theoretical concepts
Ethical decision making is only possible if there is the ability to make choices between meaningful alternatives and put that choice into effect.
4. Moving from ethical theories to principles that give guidance
There is a need for a social worker to identify a set of principles to use in a given situation. Different principles will lead to a different decision and outcome. The principles in the models of ethical decision making outlined in the Background Material will be relevant here.
5. Defining options and arriving at a resolution
Options are formulated by deciding on one arm of the dilemma, by developing a synthesis of the options or by finding a different solution entirely. This process takes place within the context of professional codes of practice and a critical examination of the structural features of the situation and the worker’s own personal views.
6. Using the code of ethics
In arriving at a decision it is important to pay attention to the profession’s code of ethics. It may provide some direction in difficult situations. The AASW Code of Ethics is built on three core principles: respect for persons, social justice and professional integrity. Solving ethical dilemmas may be assisted by consulting the code.
7. Client values, societal values and personal values
Client values, world view, cultural outlook and religious beliefs are vital parts of the decision-making process and must be integrated into ethical decision making. The worker also has a responsibility to society at large and is expected to uphold societal values as well as advocate for change. However, the values that have the most impact on how situations are defined and resolved are those of the worker—life experiences, professional training and belief system. They are the screen through which workers see the world and influence how the worker understands ethical issues, problems and dilemmas.
——————————
Appendix 2
Ethical issues and AI
(Reamer, 2023)
The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has further complicated the area of ethical practice for social workers. Reamer (2023) lists some implications for social workers when using AI in their practice.
Informed consent and client autonomy When using AI, practitioners should inform clients of relevant benefits and risks and respect clients’ judgment about whether to accept or decline the use of AI.
Privacy and confidentiality Social workers have a duty to ensure that the AI software they are using is properly encrypted and protected from data breaches to the greatest extent possible.
Transparency Social workers who use AI should inform clients of any unauthorized disclosure of clients’ protected health information, for example, as a result of computer hacking or failed online or digital security.
Client misdiagnosis Social workers should supplement any AI-generated assessment with their own independent assessments and judgements. Misdiagnosis may lead to inappropriate or unwarranted interventions which, in turn, may cause significant harm to clients.
Client abandonment Social workers who rely on AI to connect with clients must take steps to respond to their messages and postings in a timely fashion, when warranted, e.g. if a client communicated suicidal ideation via AI. Social workers should take reasonable steps to avoid abandoning clients who are still in need of services.
Client surveillance One of the inherent risks of AI is the possibility that third parties will use available data inappropriately and without authorisation for surveillance purposes, e.g. prosecutors may subpoena electronically stored information generated by AI to prosecute pregnant people who seek abortion services.
Plagiarism, dishonesty, fraud, and misrepresentation One advantage of AI is that it enables social workers to generate useful job-related information quickly, e.g. for grant applications and fundraising appeals. Social workers who take advantage of this powerful AI tool must be sure to cite their sources and comply with “fair use” doctrine to avoid allegations of plagiarism, dishonesty, fraud, and misrepresentation
Algorithmic bias and unfairness AI’s dependence on machine learning, which draws from large volumes of available data that may not be entirely representative of social workers’ clients, comes with a risk that algorithms used will incorporate significant bias related to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression, and other vulnerable or protected categories.
Use of evidence-based AI tools Because of the speed of development, social workers who incorporate AI into their practice have an ethical duty to keep pace with research-informed developments and adjust their protocols accordingly. A key resource is the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (https://aaai.org/).
Reamer (2023) also proposes a protocol for ethical use of artificial intelligence, i.e. steps that social workers can take to increase the likelihood of compliance with prevailing ethical standards:
Establish ethics-based governing principles, e.g. Using AI technology will not cause harm; AI technology is designed and developed using transparent protocols including those that reduce biases (against race, ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression, religion); clients are able to make informed decisions around AI use because they are told of the risks and benefits.
Establish a digital ethics steering committee comprised of key staff who are familiar with AI technology and prevailing ethical standards and best practices.
Convene diverse focus groups to review AI protocols and suggest modifications
Subject algorithms to peer review to help identify and address blind spots
Conduct AI model simulations to address possible algorithmic bias
Develop social worker-focused guidance for accessing and using AI results—AI should not replace professional judgement.
Develop an effective communication strategy to use with clients to ensure the key benefits and risks of using AI are understood.
Maintain a log of tests to identify the strengths and limitations of any AI approach.
Appendix 3
Ethics in Group Work
(Toseland & Rivas, 2014)
There is no such thing as value free group work practices. All group workers operate on the basis of certain specific assumptions and values regarding the nature of human beings, the role of members, and the role of the group leader. Values influence the methods used to accomplish group and individual goals. A worker’s actions in the group are affected by contextual values, client value systems, and the worker’s personal value system.
There are four key values:
1. Respect and dignity—we value the worth and dignity of all group members no matter how devalued or stigmatised they may be by society.
2. Solidarity and mutual aid—We value the power and promise of relationships that help members grow and develop, to help them heal, to satisfy their needs for human contact and connectedness, and to promote a sense of unity and community.
3. Empowerment—We value the power of the group to help members feel good about themselves and to enable them to use their abilities to help themselves and to make a difference in their communities.
4. Understanding, respect, and camaraderie among people from diverse backgrounds—We value the ability of groups to help enrich members by acquainting them to people from other backgrounds.
In addition to these key values, workers and the members bring their own unique set of values to the group. Part of the worker’s task is to help members clarify values and identify and resolve value conflicts that arise. The worker should also be sensitive to the part cultural diversity can play in a group.
Workers’ personal value systems also affect how they practise. If workers are uncomfortable discussing certain value-laden topics, or if they impose their own values on the group, their work will be seriously impaired. Workers need to be aware of the implications of their own values. Workers can become aware of their own values through supervision.
Ethical principles for the conduct of group meetings include:
Screening procedures lead to the selection of members whose needs and goals can be met by the group
Workers help members develop and pursue therapeutic goals
Workers discuss whether the proceedings of the group are confidential and make provisions so that they are kept confidential
Members are protected from physical threats, intimidation, the imposition of work and member values, and other forms of coercion and peer pressure that are not therapeutic
Members are treated fairly and equitably
Workers avoid exploiting members for their own gain
Appropriate referrals are made when the needs of a particular member cannot be met in the group
The worker engages in ongoing assessment, evaluation, and follow-up of members to ensure that the group meets their needs
Appendix 4
Dealing With Ethical Mistakes
(Barsky, 2013)
What happens when social workers make a mistake—perhaps an error of judgment, an unintentional imposition of biases or assumptions, or providing people with inaccurate information?
To admit a significant practice error takes moral fortitude. There are ways to proceed with integrity, but also with support, strategy, and caution. Whenever a social worker thinks he or she has committed a significant practice error, the worker should consider consulting with the following sources of help:
Attorney—Attorneys can provide legal consultation and support with the protection of privacy and privilege. This means that the social worker can consult with her own attorney with the assurance that the attorney cannot be called to testify against her. The worker could also consult with the agency’s attorney. However, the worker should understand that this attorney works for the agency, not for the individual worker. Although the agency attorney may provide advice, the worker should know that agency interests and the worker’s personal interests might not coincide (e.g., if the agency decides to lay blame on an individual worker for acting on her own, to protect the agency as a whole from legal liability). Attorneys can provide advice about the best way to redress errors, for instance, through confidential mediation processes, so that conflicts can be resolved without the need for court.
A member of a registered social work association, e.g. AASW, NASW, BASW, may have avenues to pursue within that association and other resources for support.
Liability Insurance Company—Workers who have liability insurance may contact their insurance providers for consultation on whether the insurance will cover certain errors. In fact, many insurance policies require that workers report errors to them. Workers should know that once they report a possible error, their future insurance rates and eligibility for insurance might be affected. They should also know that consequences with the insurance company might be more severe if they do not self-report.
Clinical supervisor—Social workers should generally make use of supervision to help them deal with difficult situations, including how to follow up when an error has been made. If a worker has a strong, trusting relationship with the supervisor, it will be easier to discuss such problems and work toward the best resolution possible.
When discussing how to deal with a practice error, social workers should address whether and how to disclose the error to the clients. The timing and manner of the disclosure may be crucial to how the client responds. Often, a prompt, honest, and open apology—along with a commitment to provide corrective action—will help resolve the issue in an amicable manner. When there is the potential for legal liability, be sure to consult an attorney before making any disclosures to the client.
