in rural areas, some urban areas, and community mental health centers that may be charged with treating people with serious mental illness (Weiner, 2018), as well as children and youth (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). Taking the above into account, “harnessing ICT for social good” (Berzin et al., 2015) can have a great positive impact. According to the Census Bureau, in 2015 78% of U.S. households had a desktop or laptop computer, 75% had a handheld device such as a smartphone, and 77% had a broadband Internet subscription (Ryan & Lewis, 2017). Use of ICT can “connect populations previously marginalized by geography, disability, and economics” (Berzin et al., 2015). In addition: Wireless technologies … are removing the economic barriers faced by those previously unable to connect to the Internet or receive online services or support. Such technologies also provide access across rural and urban areas and among populations previously cut off from wired infrastructure. The second fact that Berzin and colleagues point out is that, because what literature there is on the integration of practice and technology comes mostly from psychologists and counselors, a gap exists between social workers’ expertise in direct practice and the growing understanding of “how and when to best integrate technology and practice.” Third, drawing on the work of scholars in the field, Berzin and colleagues explain that social workers face a number of limitations when trying to integrate technology into practice: ● Limited education and training are barriers to social workers’ ability to effectively incorporate ICT (Mishna, Bogo, & Sawyer, 2015). ● Social workers may not understand ICT’s use because their exposure to innovative applications of ICT in therapeutic work has been limited (Freddolino & Blaschke, 2008; Langlois, 2011). ● Evidence of the effectiveness of ICT’s use is limited (Chan & Holosko, 2015), probably because few social work
interventions use the technology and little empirical evidence exists concerning the role played by ICT in the interventions. ● Financial resources for adopting and testing ICT in the field are limited. Berzin and colleagues go on to outline the benefits of using ICT. For example, integrating services using technology can provide flexibility and on-demand services, less encumbered by geography, office hours, and even cost. Clients in rural areas and people with limited mobility or other disabilities can profit from the use of ICT in social work practice. Clients may still see a social worker in person but have their contacts augmented through technology. Another benefit is relief from the rigid structures and timeframes of traditional services: For example, clients often wait three weeks for an intake appointment, wait another three weeks to be assigned a therapist, and then have weekly appointments dictated by either treatment manual or agency protocols. Interactive computer-, web-, or app-based programs enable the consumer to get the services they need at their pace and when they want them. Although the use of technology can help to fulfill the ethical requirement of beneficence and the goal of social justice by potentially making clients’ lives better and helping people to overcome geographical and physical barriers, it does raise ethical issues as well. For this reason, the National Association of Social Workers, Association of Social Work Boards, Council on Social Work Education, and Clinical Social Work Association partnered to develop technology standards to guide social workers. The organizations formed a task force that met for almost two years, prepared a draft, and accepted comments from individual social workers, academicians, and groups. The result was NASW, ASWB, CSWE, & CSWA Standards for Technology in Social Work Practice (2017). This document incorporates the new world of technology into the traditional world of social work ethics and law.
DECISION-MAKING MODEL
As we have seen it is not uncommon for mental health professionals to grapple with conflicts involving personal values and beliefs, ethical duties, employment practices, and the law. Sometimes they may be faced with a choice between taking action that supports an ethical standard but violates the law, or vice versa. While national mental health associations’ ethical standards usually provide excellent frameworks to guide practice and assist with the resolution of ethical dilemmas, it is naïve to assume they all hold the answers to all the questions faced by licensed mental health practitioners. While both necessary and useful, some experts, such as Freud and Krug (2002a), argue that for ethical decision-making alone, codes of ethics are insufficient. In effect, they state that codes of ethics are frequently used as a risk management tool, offering guidelines for practice that may not be compatible with other goals set forth by a particular mental health focus. In addition, unique and unexpected ways ethical issues may emerge in clinical practice work against attempts to apply codes of ethics. For those reasons, Freud and Krug (2002a) propose that “ethical judgments are best made in small groups where members bring different perspectives and intuitions to the process while agreeing on basic humanistic values.” Still, codes of ethics are invaluable tools for guiding mental health practitioners toward ethical practice. Thus the authors recommend that, in general, codes of ethics be used to help guide professionals in decision making and include: 1. Increased attention to our moral intuitions and emotions : Rational, ethical decision making should be supplemented by a person’s emotions and intuition, as shaped by culture and profession. In an effort to maintain a rational, detached, and
professional approach to service, mental health practitioners may ignore warning signals and gut instincts relevant to the reason for a decision. 2. Institutionalized opportunities for dialogue and ethical concerns : It is important to have safe, nonjudgmental group forums for open and regular discussion of ethical issues. 3. Open acknowledgment and respect for moral diversity within a shared body of basic values : The decision-making process works best when consulting with a diverse group of individuals who share basic values but differ in perspectives and intuitions. Mental health practitioners also need to consider basic protocols and steps to take to increase their ability to make sound ethical decisions. While not all ethical dilemmas have a corresponding definitive solution, professionals can take reasonable steps to arrive at the best possible decision through an ethical decision- making model that would: 1. Identify the problem or conflicts between the ethical and legal expectations and requirements, including the values and duties that may conflict. 2. Understand and apply the state and national professional association code of ethics. 3. Identify the individuals, groups, and organizations that are likely to be affected by the decision. 4. Tentatively identify all possible courses of action and the participants involved in each, along with possible benefits and risks for each. 5. Thoroughly examine the reasons in favor of and opposed to each possible course of action, considering relevant:
a. Ethical theories. b. Codes of ethics.
Page 53
Book Code: SWTX1524
EliteLearning.com/Social-Work
Powered by FlippingBook