Social workers when working with a black male disputing service user with mental wellness job who lives in the community, who late began playing loud reggae music and became verbally aggressive to a member of the populace as was reported. If the societal worker uses an useful attack which supports the ethical rule of actions that cause good or that are good to many and does n’t do injury. This attack is line with the societal work value of esteeming the single worth of all people. To uphold societal work value, societal workers should promote and advance actions that will take to independence, good wellness, societal inclusion, run intoing service users ‘ demands or demands, authorization and societal justness. It is of import that societal workers should non indulge in actions that disempower the service user. The thought of the greatest good for the greatest figure needs an aim, logical appraisal of the attendant effects of different line of action ( Mill, 1863 ) .
The determination by a societal worker to put the black male service user in a mental infirmary the service under the subdivision 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which places the service user for a 28 yearss appraisal in a mental wellness infirmary. The societal worker must weigh the actions on an ethical graduated table. The Mental Health Act stipulates the evidences for the application for detainment of a service user in infirmary ; the service users lack the ability to consent is unstable or impermanent and the service user is non expected to accept when they regain the ability to make so. A certain degree of restraint demands to be used which is justifiable by the hazard to other people, but is non allowable under the Mental Capacity Act,2005 because, it can non be said to be proportionate to the to the patient personally ; and. Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 will be used if the full extent of the province and degree of a service users status is ill-defined ; that there is a demand to transport out an initial in-patient appraisal so as to explicate a treatment/care program or to make a determination if the service user will accept intervention voluntarily following admittance ( DOH, 2008 ) . On the issue of protecting the involvement and wellbeing of the community based on the useful attack. Benefits of each and every option must be weighed against the cost and hazard of set abouting that policy option and choose the policy option with the greatest additions to cost/risk ratio ( Barsky, 2010 ) Using this attack the societal worker must see the consequence the determination will hold on the service user against the involvement of the society. The determination to acknowledge the service user into infirmary seems to be the right determination in tandem with the useful impression of the greatest good but these calls to oppugn the independency of the service user. Mental infirmary will hold a disempowering consequence on the service user as he will be under observation. It is of import that the values and ethical quandary are identified, the cross subdivision of the society that will be most affected by the determination is identified ; critical analysis of other possible class of action and the possible results. The societal worker should besides measure the hazard that service user portends to the members of the populace, utilizing an utilitarian/consequentialism concretion to do a rational ethical determination ( Reamer, 2002 ) .Resolving these struggles or challenges are non helped by the circumstance that values and moralss as a subdivision of doctrine has no definite external method of turn outing its exactitude and effectivity ; philosophical systems are based on unobjective propositions ( Pojman, 2001 ) .The instance of a service user with mental wellness job that lives in a community who exhibited marks of aggression, before puting the service user on subdivision 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, the societal worker must see if the service user is a menace to himself or members of the populace, what others class of action is available for the societal worker to research and whose best involvement his determination protects. The nucleus inquiry for the societal worker is the ratio between the greater good and possible injury. If traveling the service user to a mental wellness infirmary serves the greater good so from an useful position the determination is an ethical one. The societal worker can hold or differ with the black male service user that he is non supposed to be assessed or moved into a mental infirmary since he is claiming to hold acted in self defense mechanism. The single worth and independency of the service user becomes an issue. The societal work codification of moralss encourages the independency and regard of the single worth of the service user. The issue with social held beliefs so comes to the bow. The social held political orientation that there is a more frequent history of force among black people may hold warranted in the ailment that was levelled against the service user by members of the populace. This labelling or the stereotyped perceptual experience of black people has resulted in them being treated otherwise within the mental wellness system. One of the major grounds for the disparity in detainment rates identified by a old survey was the degree and frequence of force among black people ( Wall et al, 1999 ) .This suggests that societal workers bear the load of the society ‘s demand and outlook ( Jupp, 2005 ) .This brings to oppugn the procedure of doing ethical determinations in such quandary, the deontological attack is of the impression that some actions are inherently right or incorrect. The deontologist is most likely to back up the service users ‘ cardinal right to his privateness and independency and that it will be unethical to travel him into a mental infirmary. The teleological attack in moral doctrine stipulates that one ‘s ethical responsibility is determined by the value of the attendant consequence. This implies that the determination shaper should give acceptance to results instead than decision and that result should find what is morally incorrect or right. This position supports the usage of the useful concretion ; Utilitarianism states that if faced with an ethical delimma, one should move in a mode that maximises the greatest balance of good over bad effects ( Reamer, 2002 ) .
The socio-philosophical attacks to ethical determinations does non turn to the nucleus inquiry of what is good and it is in finding what is right that we need counsel ( Hartsell, 2006 ) . The philosophical attacks does non hold any external method of confirmation of any of attacks to ethical determination ( G & A ; ouml ; del, 1992 ) , each o these attacks have their virtues and disadvantages. Ethical motives as a subdivision of doctrine is non an exact scientific discipline, it can non be numerically quantified. The perceptual experience that an ethical determination serves the greatest good may be ephemeral as events might find otherwise. The deontological attack failing shows when good impressions lead to negative results. For illustration trusting on the service users human right and independency which at the peculiar clip will look as the right thing to make and the service user is left to populate in the community and s/he injuries a member of the populace. It will be unwise for the societal worker to claim that his/her actions were ethical. At this point inquiries are raised on the method that led to the determination. When ethical attacks are conflicting, that is to state that there is an ethical quandary and each of the ethical rules is right, pick have to be made as which of the ethical rules that should be used and the deontological impression that the right ethical determination be applied is non applicable. Good rules does non ever led to good results and the fact that different good rules can be applied in one ethical creates an ethical job as the deontologists advocate that good rules be used in the procedure of ethical determination devising. Stating the truth might at the long tally have a annihilating result. Equally good there is no set of deciding factors that stipulate how these set of right rules be used when they are in struggle. There is a high inclination for ethical quandary to happen when utilizing the deontologist attack to ethical determinations.
Teleological method seems to ignore rules and encourages societal workers to take any avenue that leads to positive results.Teleologist believe that actions are justifiable if these actions produce the coveted consequences. The teleologists are non concerned with the rule but are more interested in the result. The rights of the minorities are frequently ignored, so as the results serve the involvement of the greatest good of the bulk. From the teleological position traveling the service user from the community to the infirmary if it keeps the community safe from injury and perchance the service user ‘s wellness improves the determination is an ethical determination as it serves the greatest good. If the rules or procedures used to acquire to that determination is non right is of no significance to the teleologist. The attendant consequence of actions determines the nature of the determination. The admittance to the infirmary might compromise the service user ‘s independency, societal inclusion and authorization but this will non impact whether such a determination is ethical from the position of a teleologist is the result serves the greatest good.
The fact that both positions and attacks do non supply a manner through which we can prioritize ethical rules, which takes precedency over the others. These attacks and their results are non verifiable. There is no scientific manner of quantifying good, the greatest good, right and incorrect rules. Marginalizing the minority for the good of the bulk potentially will do more jobs in the hereafter ; this will finally outweigh the initial result. The deceit of cultural minorities in the British society as being expected to label along has created a sense of persecution among these cultural minorities and positive authorities policies are viewed with disdain. This behavior manifests itself in societal attention and most particularly mental wellness where old surveies appear to bespeak a curious tendency in the detainment of service users from black cultural minority with mental wellness jobs. The nucleus inquiry with the black service user is to equilibrate the service users independency against the actions that the societal workers can originate under the Mental Health Act 1983.The societal worker must make up one’s mind the degree that the service users menace as a harmful to the service user and the members of the populace. The service user ‘s behavior though rather unusual can still be explained ; sing what the service user said that the actions were in self defense mechanism. This account might be difficult to find, the societal worker should every bit good take the cultural background of the service into consideration. One of the attacks open to the societal is to pass on in clear footings to the service user the deduction of his actions as this will reenforce the ailments made against the service user. Deprivation of an single autonomy is a serious act and this can do great anxiousness for both parties involved.Despite any attack applied the actions should be one that is good to the service user and the general populace and the procedure of acknowledging the service user to the infirmary should guarantee that the self-respect and self worth of the service user is maintained.