Ethical Conflicts in Investigating a Patient Suic ✓ Solved

Week 1 - Discussion Ethical Conflicts. A patient under the care of your agency committed suicide, and you are in charge of the adverse incident review of this case. Considering the stakeholders in your agency (clients, providers, management, third-party payers, etc.), what are the potential ethical conflicts that may arise from your role investigating this incident, and what would you do to appropriately discharge your ethical duties? When you discuss the potential ethical conflicts, provide evidence from the scholarly articles you read for this week and/or reference specific, relevant ethical standards from the Ethical Standards for Human Services Professionals from the National Organization for Human Services. Please provide an initial substantive answer between words in length.

Paper For Above Instructions

The ethical dilemmas faced by human service professionals can be particularly complex when incidents result in tragic outcomes, such as a patient committing suicide. In the case of evaluating such an incident, various stakeholders including clients, service providers, and management must be considered along with the ethical implications associated with the review process. This paper will explore potential ethical conflicts arising from this role, while also offering strategies to navigate these conflicts by grounding the discussion in theoretical and practical frameworks relevant to the field of human services.

Understanding Ethical Conflicts

When a patient takes their own life, the repercussions can be deeply felt throughout an agency, prompting questions regarding the safety and care provided to clients. Ethical conflicts in investigations of such incidents emerge from the potential discrepancies between the duties owed to various stakeholders. For instance, the ethical duty to protect client confidentiality may conflict with the need to report adverse events to management or regulatory bodies (National Organization for Human Services, 2015). Furthermore, the human service professional may grapple with personal feelings of guilt and responsibility while fulfilling their role as an investigator, thus impacting their judgment (Essock, Olfson, & Hogan, 2015).

Stakeholders in the Investigation

Identifying the stakeholders involved is crucial in understanding the scope of ethical conflicts in this scenario. The primary stakeholders include:

• Clients: The individuals undergoing therapy, their well-being being paramount.
• Providers: The professionals involved in care, who may fear repercussions from an investigation.
• Management: The agency’s administrative team focused on liability and reputation.
• Third-party payers: Insurance companies or governmental bodies interested in service efficacy.

Each of these stakeholders has varying expectations and concerns that complicate the investigation process. For example, while clients may expect absolute confidentiality and respect for their narratives, management may prioritize transparency for operational reasons, leading to conflicts of interest (Marbury, 2016).

Ethical Standards and Responsibilities

The National Organization for Human Services outlines several ethical standards pertinent to this investigation. For instance, the responsibility to clients includes several key standards such as recognizing and building on client strengths (Standard 1), protecting the client’s right to privacy (Standard 3), and acting in the best interest of clients and communities (Standard 10) (National Organization for Human Services, 2015). Balancing these standards with the investigative responsibilities poses a complex challenge.

One potential ethical conflict arises from the investigation’s focus on agency accountability versus the personal experiences of the client. The agency may push for a narrative that minimizes liability, while the data gathered in the investigation must accurately reflect the client's experiences (Vargo et al., 2013). This contention can lead to a perception of betrayal among clients who feel their voices are sidelined in favor of institutional interests (Kelly, 2009).

Role of Evidence and Scholarly Support

To effectively address these ethical dilemmas, solid grounding in scholarly work is requisite. Recent articles emphasize the importance of employing ethical frameworks that prioritize client welfare while acknowledging the duty to the agency (Moore, 1997; Sharfstein, 2015). For instance, research by Alemanno (2016) emphasizes the role of participatory approaches in evaluations, highlighting the need for transparency in processes that influence clients' lives. This idea supports a dual approach—balancing the need for thorough investigation with respect for client experiences.

Discharging Ethical Duties Responsibly

To navigate these ethical conflicts adeptly, a human service professional should take a multi-faceted approach. First, maintaining open lines of communication with all stakeholders is crucial. Engaging clients in dialogue about the investigation allows for a shared understanding of its purpose and outcomes, which may alleviate feelings of alienation or distrust.

Furthermore, consulting with a multidisciplinary team can provide varying perspectives that enrich the understanding of the situation, thereby leading to more informed decisions. This collaborative model ensures that ethical standards are upheld from multiple angles, positively impacting all involved parties (Essock et al., 2015).

Conclusion

Ultimately, while the investigation of a patient suicide necessitates careful consideration of ethical conflicts, acknowledging these complexities and grounding decisions in ethical standards will help human service professionals navigate the process effectively. It is vital to remember that the agency's integrity and the clients' rights to confidentiality and personal dignity must coexist in harmony. By prioritizing dialogue, collaboration, and ethical guidelines, professionals can fulfill their commitments to uphold standards while ensuring that their actions reflect the core values of the human services.

References

• Alemanno, A. (2016). Citizen lobbying: How your skills can fix democracy.
• Essock, S. M., Olfson, M., & Hogan, M. F. (2015). Current practices for measuring mental health outcomes in the USA: International overview of routine outcome measures in mental health. International Review of Psychiatry, 27(4).
• Kelly, T. A. (2009). Healing the broken mind: Transforming America's failed mental health system. Behavioral Healthcare, 29(10), 35.
• Marbury, D. (2016). How behavioral health can benefit from population health strategies. Behavioral Healthcare, 36(3), 40, 42-43.
• National Organization for Human Services. (2015). Ethical standards for human services professionals.
• Moore, J. D. (1997). Setting standards. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27(44), I32.
• Sharfstein, J. M. (2015). Dear health care lobbyists. The Milbank Quarterly, 93(1), 15-18.
• Vargo, A. C., Sharrock, P. J., Johnson, M. H., & Armstrong, M. I. (2013). The use of a participatory approach to develop a framework for assessing quality of care in children's mental health services. Administration And Policy in Mental Health, 40(4).