M5.2 Class Discussion: Professional Dilemma
As we have learned from our reading this week, beneficence in a moral sense means more than do no harm. It also involves actively seeking to help those in need, and protecting others from threats. Privacy and confidentiality, on the other hand, involve trust. There are only two ways that a professional can break that trust. One is when the professional violates trust through negligence, and there are professional sanctions for that. But in more serious cases, the professional must choose to intentionally violate their clients trust. Intentional violations of trust have to be justified.
What if an intentional violation of privacy and confidentiality is justified, but it will violate the principle of beneficence? Worse, what if your actions cause harm no matter what? What do you do, and how do you justify it? In this discussion, we are going to debate this question. Moral dilemmas are particularly tough when the choices are few and results could be costly. Now is the time to seek the support of your peers.
Initial Post:
Carefully explore the case study in Meyers Chapter 6, study 6.4.1, and then run the dilemma through your growing SmartArt toolkit. By Thursday of Module 5, share your answers to these questions:
In this situation, what would you do? Tell the parents, or not?
Provide a justification for your choice. How have you balanced beneficence with privacy and confidentiality?
Please explicitly use concepts and theories from your reading.
Reply Posts:
From Friday through Sunday of Module 5, return to this thread and reply to 2-3 posts posted by your peers, along with those who replied to you. Please respond to at least one post from a student who made the same decision as you, and at least one post from a student who made a different decision.
How does your peers ethical decision-making differ from yours?
How would you update your toolkit, based on their justifications for their choices?

Order Now