Ethical Dilemmas in Technology.
ANSWER
The ethical issues that social workers should think about when using technology in their jobs are at the center of this sociological question. Let’s dissect the query and its elements one by one:
Observing a client’s social media activity or doing an Internet search to find out information:
Moral Conundrum: Is it appropriate for a social worker to look up a client’s internet profile for more details or perspectives?
Invasion of privacy, permission, secrecy, and boundaries are ethical issues.
Principles/Ethical Guidelines: Informed consent, professionalism, secrecy, and respect for privacy.
Parties Affected: The social worker’s professional integrity and the client’s privacy and confidence.
Permitting customers to send texts or emails to social workers:
Ethical Conundrum: Should social workers permit their clients to communicate via text or email?
Ethical Concerns: Electronic communication security, privacy, limits, prompt response, and recordkeeping.
Principles/Ethical Guidelines: Informed consent, professionalism, accessibility, and confidentiality.
Parties Affected: The social worker’s capacity to set limits, the client’s preferences for communication, and the security and privacy of communication.
The personal social media profile of a social worker:
Ethical Conundrum: Should a social worker’s social media presence impact their professional interactions with clients?
Dual relationships, limits, confidentiality, and professionalism are ethical issues.
Ethics/Values: maintaining privacy, respecting professional limits, and averting conflicts of interest.
The social worker’s professional reputation, possible conflicts of interest, and the client’s opinion of the social worker are among the impacted parties.
You can think about possible solutions and the arguments for and against each of these moral problems:
Getting to know a client’s Internet presence:
Plan of Action: Before accessing the client’s internet information, get their informed consent.
Justifications: It might offer insightful information on the wants and life of the customer. If the client agrees, it respects transparency.
Arguments against Confidentiality and privacy might be violated. It’s possible that the client feels violated or uneasy.
Enabling email or text messaging:
Action Plan: Clearly define the rules and parameters for electronic correspondence. Ensure that clients understand the dangers.
Justification: Improves client accessibility. It can enhance convenience and communication.
Arguments against: Possible invasions of privacy, problems with security, and a blurring of professional lines.
Taking control of one’s social media presence:
Plan of Action: Keep personal and business social media accounts entirely apart.
Why? Because it maintains professional boundaries and stays clear of conflicts of interest.
Arguments against: The inability to express oneself freely on social media and the possibility of clients seeing private data.
In the end, the social worker’s dedication to respecting their profession’s moral principles and norms while putting their clients’ welfare and trust first should serve as their compass while making ethical decisions. The particular course of action selected will be determined by the social worker’s righteous judgment and the specific circumstances.
Question Description
Can you help me understand this Sociology question?
As technology advances, so do the ways that social workers can connect with clients. Is it acceptable to look at a client’s activities on social media or seek information through an Internet search? Should a social worker allow clients to contact them by text or e-mail? How does a social worker’s personal social media presence influence the worker/client relationship?
- Describe a specific ethical dilemma based on one of the options above.
- Describe the ethical issues in the option chosen.
- Identify specific values or ethical standards that apply.
- Identify who is likely to be affected by the ethical dilemma.
- Describe potential courses of action.
- Examine reasons in favor of or opposed to the course of action.