Cited by 60Social Work Education and PracticeEthics in medical practiceEthics in Business and Education

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

McAuliffe, Donna, Chenoweth, Lesley·2008·Ethics and Social Welfare

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17496530801948739

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

  1. 1999, Code of Ethics
  2. Banks S., 2004, Ethics, Accountability and the Social Professions, 10.1007/978-1-137-11536-2 · DOI
  3. Banks S., 2006, Ethics and Values in Social Work
  4. 10.1093/bjsw/bch199 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bowles W., 2006, Ethical Practice in Social Work: An Applied Approach
  6. Chenoweth L., 2005, The Road to Social Work and Human Service Practice: An Introductory Text
  7. 10.1080/17496530701237175 · DOI
  8. Congress E., 1999, Social Work Values and Ethics: Identifying and Resolving Professional Dilemmas
  9. Corey G., 2007, Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions
  10. Dolgoff R., 2005, Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice
  11. Freegard H., 2006, Ethical Practice for Health Professionals, 66
  12. Garcia J. G., 2003, Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 268, 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00253.x · DOI
  13. Hill M., 1995, Ethical Decision Making in Therapy: Feminist Perspectives, 18
  14. Kerridge I., 2005, Ethics and Law for the Health Professions
  15. McAuliffe D., 2005, Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 2
  16. 10.1177/1468017305051362 · DOI
  17. 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) .
  18. Manning S. S., 2003, Ethical Leadership in Human Services: A Multidimensional Approach
  19. Mattison M., 2000, Social Work, 45, 201, 10.1093/sw/45.3.201 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/j.0312-407X.2005.00179.x · DOI
  21. Reamer F. G., 2006, Social Work Values and Ethics
  22. Rothman J. C., 2005, From the Front Lines: Student Cases in Social Work Ethics
  23. Seedhouse D., 1998, Ethics: The Heart of Health Care
  24. Steinman S. O., 1998, The Ethical Decision Making Manual for Helping Professionals
  25. Swisher L., 1998, Legal and Ethical Issues in Physical Therapy
  26. 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
Venue
Ethics and Social Welfare
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