Ethics @ MindSay 
morals
- A doctor who spent only 5 seconds with the patient, leaving her completely ignorant and anxious about her clinical situation.
- A doctor who actually took the time to come to the nursing counter, asking if it is possible to put an extra chair in a patient's room, for the family.
- A patient who no matter how nice and heartfelt I was, simply would not display any interest or respect for what I had to say.
- A patient who thanked me for doing what I'm supposed to do as a nurse.
It's nice being a nurse. It sucks having to work with heartless morons with no sense of ethics or even respect!
Anyway.
I have a paper due for my Ethics class tomorrow. We can write about . . . well, whatever, basically, as long as we can relate it to ethics. Something we talked about in class, something going on in the world, something in another one of our classes, something from our textbook, or something from our own personal experience.
Hello
If you ever take an Ethical Reasoning class, basically through EVERYTHING you believe in as ethical and moral and throw it out the door! And I am not shittin you!
Now granted the ethical reasoning class I went to is a class of 6 total classes to become a drug/alchol counslor in the state of NE, so we had to learn a couple of laws that are used as a drug and alchol clients and counselors. And half of us were either just starting the classes and the other half were working LDACs or Social Workers who work with addicts. What just boggles those of us new to these classes is the fact counselors have to juggle not just the federal law on confidentiality but also the State Law of reporting abuse of any kind! Thus why you take the Ethical Reasoning class and find out that everything you normally would think and do is WRONG!!!!!!!
When a counselor deals with issues we have 4 main choices to choose from after we do our ethical reasoning and decision:
1. Legal and ethical, or
2. Legal and unethical, or
3. Illegal and ethical, or
4. illegal and unethical
Out of our four choices, we were told that we really do NOT ever want to choose #4 but that we would choose #s 1-3 all the time in our wide range of issues and decisions. Amazing huh? That we would choose illegal and ethical or legal and unethical but trust me after dealing with some secenarios that actual counselors had to deal with, you would be amazed at how many times you would choose illegal and ethical or legal and unethical! We were also told and it made total sense that when laws are in conflict with this profession, the bigger wins except when smaller is tougher!
Then we got a very brief introduction into the Stages of Ethical/Moral Reasoning. Which made EVERYONE's brains go to mush! We were taught that Lawrence Kohlberg is the champion of research in the area of moral development and if you are going to buy any books (modern) to make sure you look in the back to make sure that Kohlberg is listed as a source. Paiget took a lot of works include Freud's (which was pointed out that Freud may have been wrong on a lot of things in a lot of ppl's views but he was right on a lot of things that are used across the board by many ppl!) and even though Paiget is now dismissed with a lot of his research in moral reasoning, he is credited with having accelerated the effer to understand psychology of moral reasoning which includes Kohlberg's stages of of Moral/Ethical Reasoning that we use today.
LDACs and other counselors always look at their final decision they make for a client and then look at what stage of Moral/Ethical REason they are using. And what is so upsetting but not suprising is that once a person starts working as any form of counselor, their Moral/Ethical Reason goes from what they dub a Jr. High level after a few years working back down to an Infant level. Because they start out with good intentions and follow through with them, they get in trouble either via their organization or the law for being a truely ethical and moral counselor! So after that, they revert back to the infant level to cover their butts because they have been burned!
There are three main catagories of Moral/Ethical Reasoning that are then broken into 6 stages that we use today: (I am going to use an example from our ethics manual)
Stage 1: If I don't take the course I'll get in trouble. (Infant-Concerned with self)
Stage 2: I need the CEU's, so I'll take the course. (Toddler-Concerned with self)
These two stages fall into the Preconventional Level of Reasoning that the majority of ppl revert back to once working in a counseling and other profession after a few years.
Stage 3: I'll take the course because I know the presenters are truly wonderful human beings and I want them to like me. (Jr. High-Social/Group Concern)
Stage 4: I'll go because my boss told me to and thus it's my duty. (Law & Order-Social/Group Concern)
These two stages fall into the Conventional Level of Reasoning that the majority of ppl who do NOT work in counseling professions funtion at (before they become counselors!) and the level that the majority of those ppl in professoins as Police Officers, Medical professions, Judiciary professions, and the Military function at.
Stage 5: I'll go because I have accepted a job as a counselor, and have thus also accepted the responsibility to discharge my duties in an ethical manner. (Negotiation to find balance)
Stage 6: I'll take the course out of respect for dignity of my clients, who deserve, simple by virtue of being a human, to be treated in accordance with the highest possible ethical standards. (Individal vs. Social)
These two stages fall into the Postconventional, Autonomous, or Principled Level of Reasoning that very few ppl ever fall into. What is so suprising is that the US Constitution was written to these two levels by 30-45 year old White men who were slave owners and they thought and wrote like this when the Constitution was being constructed. The same with the Magna Carta. Any Country that has been through a lot and still flurised and wrote laws and other things at this level have flurished and have functioned orginally at this level of Reasoning!
Amazing isn't it. And I am not done with the things I have learned! We also had to learn about putting 4 factors into play after we came to our Decision and our Rational of why we got there. Those Rules as they were dubbed in our class are:
Beneficence--the duty to promote welfar of, and prevent harm to, all persons we serve. Whic extendes to the community and is a must for all counselors to pursue.
Nonmaleficence--the duty to do no harm Sounds Wiccany to me if you ask me! This actual principle is traceable back to Hippocrates. In other words, we have a duty to avoid potential harmful multiple relationships with not only our clients but their families.
I was very happy to hear in this class, that I and my friend that went to this class who are Pagans, were NOT the only ones that had a HUGE problem with Nonmaleficence. In reality there is NO such thing as doing NO HARM to ANYONE! And when a few of us brought this up to the Ethics Presentors, it was explained to us that we are correct, somone is ALWAYS going to get harmed in what ever decsioin we make and our job is to ethical come to a decision as to who is going to get the least amount of harm presented to them!
Rspect for Client Autonomy--duty to recognize the client's right to make her/his own decisios, at the same time the substantial influence we have over those decisions and the potential conflict between duty to respect client autonomy and the duty to prevent harm
Justice-- the duty to treat individuals fairly, provide equal access to services regardless of race, disability, appearance religion age gender ethnicity intelligence, sexual orientation, national ancestory, martial economic educational or social status
Then after learning all about these lovely things, we got told there is of course no book that we can resort to when we have delimias. Suprise Suprise!:P
Anyway, I got a lot out of the class even if I didn't agree with some of the decisions that were eventually made by unknown counselors scenarios that we were presented and had to make our own decisions over! But that is why in the Ethical/Moral Reasoning class there is truely no right or wrong answer to any of your decisions! This class was to help you think in an ethical manner and then be able to explain your decision and WHY! We learned to always ask WHY we came to any decision in anything more than 5 times because then and only then would we come to the true understand at what is at the core of our ethical reasoning!
By Jamie Findlater
Special to American Forces Press Service
May 16, 2008 - Showing appreciation for the men and women that risk their lives to defend the United States is essential, and yet rumors and fears about ethical restrictions that limit the amount of gift giving is a concern for many philanthropic organizations. Lee Bradley, director of the Department of Defense Ethics, Standards and Conduct Office came on ASYLive BlogTalkRadio yesterday to clarify some of these concerns.
"I recognize that a whole lot of people believe that gift rules are very restrictive, ... but federal employees really live by the creed of 'public service is a public trust.' We are governed not only by our joint ethics regulations that exist in DoD, but we are also governed by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Standards and Conduct," Bradley explained.
Bradley went on to say that many of these restrictions are actually not as prohibitive as some individuals might think. In fact, exceptions are made in many circumstances, particularly for wounded servicemembers. The basic gift rules in DoD are that government employees may not accept gifts over $20 from 'prohibited sources,' which are DoD contractors or outside entities seeking to do business with DoD or the government, or if it appears that the gift is being given because of an individual's official capacity.
"We don't want there to be an appearance that the gift is being given to curry favor with the federal government employee in order to get a leg up on the competition for certain government contracts," Bradley explained.
"If for instance, a corporation wanted to give a beautiful Waterford statue of the capital to the commanding general of Fort McNair, we would conclude that that gift was being given because of his official capacity," Bradley said, addressing the part of the law about individuals' official capacity.
However, if a gift is given to a group of individuals and not targeted to individuals specifically because of their official position, this law does not apply.
"If for instance, a wealthy philanthropist wants to invite all Navy personnel in the San Diego area to a San Diego Padres baseball game, the Department of Ethics will then determine if [the philanthropist] is a prohibited source: Doing business with DoD? Is he attempting to get contracts with DoD? If it passes the first test and the answer is no, we then make sure that a high-ranking official is not singled out and given the ticket because of his official position. Instead, this philanthropist is giving these tickets to all Navy personnel in the area. Under these circumstances it is perfectly acceptable for the Navy personnel to accept the tickets."
These laws are further modified when it comes to wounded soldiers. "About two years ago, as a result of the public's interest in supporting the war effort, Congress passed a provision in the DoD Appropriations Act that gives the Department of Defense more latitude in this area," Bradley said.
He explained that if a "servicemember incurs a combat-related disability, or illness or injury in a combat operation or zone while on active duty on or after Sept. 11, 2001, he or she can accept an unsolicited gift." This rule also applies to family members as long as it does not violate another statute, such as the bribery statute.
The only restriction with this law is that if the gift received is valued at an excess of $335 dollars or an excess of $1,000 dollars in multiple gifts from the same source over a year, then an ethics official from the department must review the gift and make a written determination. This does not mean that it is unlikely that the servicemember will be able to keep the gift however, Bradley explained. "I have seen a gift of a home valued at $250,000 that had to be reviewed, and the servicemember met all qualifications and still received the home."
Bradley went on to discuss restrictions placed on public officials when attending events. "When it comes to DoD officials attending events, the organization cannot use your official title to draw people into the event, but it doesn't mean that you can't participate in these events," Bradley explained.
In addition, when attending an event, an official must be careful to not express favoritism for a specific non-federal entity thus giving it "preferred status." A general cannot say, 'The Red Cross is the nation's premier disaster-response organization.' They must instead say, "The Red Cross is one of the nation's premier disaster-response organizations. It is really just a ban on giving one organization preferred status over another."
Bradley stressed that it is incredibly important that federal employees keep up to date on this information. She encouraged anyone with questions to visit the DoD Standards of Conduct Office Web site for the latest updates.
ANY PERSON IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE SHOULD:
I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.
II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving to the performance of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.
IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.
VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since the Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.
VIII. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.
IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
