The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Leave No Stone Unturned: The Inclusive Model of Ethical Decision Making
Abstract
Ethical decision making is a core part of the work of social work and human service practitioners, who confront with regularity dilemmas of duty of care; confidentiality, privacy and disclosure; choice and autonomy; and distribution of increasingly scarce resources. This article details the development and application of the Inclusive Model of Ethical Decision Making, created in response to growing awareness of the complexities of work in both public and private sectors. The model rests on four key platforms that are constructed from important foundational values and principles. These platforms are: Accountability, Consultation, Cultural Sensitivity and Critical Reflection, and underlie the dynamic five-step process that uses a reflective yet pragmatic approach to identify and analyze all relevant aspects of an ethical dilemma. The article begins by exploring the anatomy of an ethical dilemma, including the identification of competing ethical principles. It then moves on to highlight the different points in a decision-making process where difficulties typically arise for practitioners who may confront problems of interpretation of ethical codes, lack of access to needed resources and supports, or who may find themselves bound by legal or organizational restrictions. It is argued that this model has useful application for both social work education and practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 60
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- 1999, Code of Ethics
- Banks S., 2004, Ethics, Accountability and the Social Professions, 10.1007/978-1-137-11536-2 · DOI
- Banks S., 2006, Ethics and Values in Social Work
- 10.1093/bjsw/bch199 · DOI · Paper page
- Bowles W., 2006, Ethical Practice in Social Work: An Applied Approach
- Chenoweth L., 2005, The Road to Social Work and Human Service Practice: An Introductory Text
- 10.1080/17496530701237175 · DOI
- Congress E., 1999, Social Work Values and Ethics: Identifying and Resolving Professional Dilemmas
- Corey G., 2007, Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions
- Dolgoff R., 2005, Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice
- Freegard H., 2006, Ethical Practice for Health Professionals, 66
- Garcia J. G., 2003, Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 268, 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00253.x · DOI
- Hill M., 1995, Ethical Decision Making in Therapy: Feminist Perspectives, 18
- Kerridge I., 2005, Ethics and Law for the Health Professions
- McAuliffe D., 2005, Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 2
- 10.1177/1468017305051362 · DOI
- McAuliffe , D & Chenoweth , L. 2006 ‘Reflections on practice: Collaborative writing as a critically reflective activity’ , Practice Reflexions , vol. 1, no. 1. Available online at: http://www.aiwcw.org.au (accessed 25 June 2007) .
- Manning S. S., 2003, Ethical Leadership in Human Services: A Multidimensional Approach
- Mattison M., 2000, Social Work, 45, 201, 10.1093/sw/45.3.201 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0312-407X.2005.00179.x · DOI
- Reamer F. G., 2006, Social Work Values and Ethics
- Rothman J. C., 2005, From the Front Lines: Student Cases in Social Work Ethics
- Seedhouse D., 1998, Ethics: The Heart of Health Care
- Steinman S. O., 1998, The Ethical Decision Making Manual for Helping Professionals
- Swisher L., 1998, Legal and Ethical Issues in Physical Therapy
- Webb S., 2006, Social Work in a Risk Society: Social and Political Perspectives, 10.1007/978-0-230-21442-2 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- McAuliffe, D., & Chenoweth, L.
- Corresponding author
- McAuliffe, Donna
- ORCID
- McAuliffe, Donna
- Venue
- Ethics and Social Welfare
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-04
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 38-49
- ISSN
- 1749-6535 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-6543
- OpenAlex
- W2142798925
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 6.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ethics and Social Welfare (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Keywords
- ethical decision-making, social work ethics, ethical dilemmas, accountability, consultation, cultural sensitivity, critical reflection, duty of care, autonomy, resource allocation, code of ethics, social work education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review