Respect Freedom Rights Responsibilities

Identification of the affected principles of ethics

The corresponding analytical study would be a deliberate academic endeavour to outline the conditions, expectations and challenges which the individuals with learning disabilities could be subjected to by the existing structure of local social care authorities. According to Altman (2016), the responsibility of social care providers could be comprehended in the manner of pursuing of the process of instituting social changes. This could be especially significant concerning the criticality of working with specific individuals such as Sarah Thompson Drayton and Daniel Drayton, who have been affected by severe disabilities in terms of learning. This outlines the particularity of the necessity of sensitisation of the adult social care providers towards the recognition of the individual elements associated with each case of such individuals so as to formulate ethical decisions. The underlying criticality could be recognised as the vulnerability of such individuals or the groups comprised of such individuals. The efforts of adult social care are, thus, as has been outlined in the research of Bastable et al (2019), mostly focused towards the addressing of the issues related to explicit and implicit discrimination which such individuals with learning disabilities could encounter at different juncture of their social engagements. As has been observed by Beckett, Maynard and Jordan (2017), the purpose of adult social care is to provide the necessary support and assistance to such socially disadvantaged and often marginalised personnel regarding the resolving of the issues of possible social injustices to which such individuals such as Sara and Daniel could be subjected to. Such experiences of discriminations or social injustices could occur at the explicit or at the implicit levels.

In this context, Brady et al (2016) has opined about the value of ethical principle based working method applications in cases involving such disadvantaged personnel such as Sara and Daniel, as per the provided case study. The research perspectives clearly outline the fact both Sara and Daniel have been subjected to serious discrimination and desensitised behavioural approach by the local adult social care authorities. As per the observations Chadwick and Gallagher (2016), the ethical principles involve the promotion of sensitivity and awareness as well as knowledge concerning the conditions to which such individuals suffering from learning disabilities could be subjected to. These could be further elaborated to be respect, rights, dignity, freedom and responsibilities. In this context, Cigno and Bourn (2017) have outlined that the ethical element of dignity is required to be consistently enhanced through the establishment of the mutual trust based relationships in between the adult social care workers and the service recipients such as the individuals affected by various forms of disabilities, including that of learning disabilities. The significance and efficacy of such an observation, which underscore the value of such a proposition, could be comprehended as the informed perception that with the promotion of dignity, disadvantaged and marginalised personnel such as Sara and Daniel, could be empowered to the extent where the independence of such individuals could become the core consideration regarding the planning and decision formulation regarding the care processes and services which could be developed for the purpose of assisting such patients. This could be better elaborated as the approach involving humanistic considerations of empowering and reinforcing the capabilities of disadvantaged individuals, rather than attempting an authoritative and domination based approach where the care institutions and local adult care authorities as well as the associated personnel could impose the decisions of themselves on the lives of such individuals such as Sara and Daniel. The focus is always on the generation and development of the dual effects of autonomy of decisions and independence of acting upon such decisions by the disadvantaged individuals themselves. However, as has been stated in the available case study, the decision of Sara and Daniel of getting married has been fundamentally opposed by the local adult social care authorities for an entire year, on the pretext of the supposed inability of both Sara and Daniel to have natural marital relationships on the basis of their learning disabilities. Furthermore, the local adult social care authorities had also, as per the information derived from the available case study, attempted to suggest that such a wedding could lead to levelling of legal charges against the bridegroom, Daniel Drayton, to have supposedly taken advantage and raped Sara Thompson. Such pretexts indicate the violation of the ethical principles such as respect and freedom of any individual as well as the rights of the individual to establish social relationships such as marital communion. The ethical principle of responsibility, according to Vorhaus (2015),on part of the adult care social workers to ensure that such individuals with learning disabilities such as Sara and Daniels should be provided with the necessary measure of services, resources and information so that each of such disadvantaged individuals could be provided with equal measures of opportunity to decide their future courses of actions regarding their social engagements.

In this context, as per the propositions of Curryer, Stancliffe and Dew (2015), the principle of Respect could be acknowledged as primarily exposition of certain measures of regard which could be deferential in nature. This could be better elaborated as the sense of esteem, appreciation and consideration. The protection of the rights and entitlements of individuals or groups of individuals is at the core of this ethical principle. The orientation of this principle is explicitly towards the support provisioning to individuals so that such individuals could undertake confirmed choices regarding their decisions. However, Fletcher et al (2018) has specified that the currently available case study has highlighted that both the ethical principles of Respect and Dignity of the disadvantaged personnel of Sara and Daniel have been flagrantly violated by the local adult care authorities of their regions. The initial example of this could be observed as the fact that the local adult care team had forcefully conducted the assessment of learning and cerebral capacity of the bride, Sara Thompson, when six months had lapsed from the time when the team of local adult care team had been notified about the occurrence of the wedding of Daniel Drayton with Sara Thomas. This has been a direct violation of the ethical principle of right of every individual to exercise his or her choice as per the research observations of Waycott et al (2015). Furthermore, the violation of ethical principle could be considered to be further evident from the perspective of the principle of freedom of individual right to consent in any form of assessment or evaluation, such as the one which had been forcefully conducted by the local adult care teams, without taking into consideration the dissent of both Sara Thomas Drayton and her mother. This could be explained from the perspective of exercising an authoritative approach on part of the local care authorities on the vacuous conceptual basis that Sara could be considered to be incapable to exercise any ability of making informed choices. The ethics related to Dignity have been flouted completely as well since the care authorities had not maintained the core essentiality of care principles of providing the care recipient the centrality of considerations in terms of any decision formulation or development of any planned working procedure, such as that of the capacity assessment process, for the purported objective of ensuring benefit of the individual under consideration. According to Goldsmith and Skirton (2015), such an arbitrary approach which had been demonstrated by the local adult care authorities, has been indicative of an absolutely patronising and condescending behavioural approach. This had been a travesty of the principle of the individual freedom of choice and the deserving respect by even the individuals with learning disabilities such as Sara and Daniel.

According to Iezzoni et al (2017), there could be two observations which could explain this violation of principled and ethical practices on part of the local adult care authorities involving the available case study. The first one could be ascertained as the prevalent perceptual considerations amongst the majority of the social classes that personnel with any form of psychological shortcoming, such as learning disability in case of Sara and Daniel, do not deserve any form of respect or precedence in terms of decision formulation or independent behaviour and thus, such individuals are to be subjected to rigorous behavioural control under the pretext of care and assistance from the social perspectives. This specific observation has a particular resonance in the second observation. This second one could be comprehended as another prevalent conceptual notion that any form of cerebral disadvantageous condition, including that of learning inabilities and difficulties, could be translated into the perception that such individuals who could be suffering from such afflictions could be deprived of both respect and dignity although these two ethical principles are the core constituents of the fundamental rights of all of the human beings in terms of social considerations.

As per the observed research of Jacobs (2016), the interpersonal skills and efficacious communication measures which could have been employed in this context, so as to maintain the extent of dignity and respect of the individuals under consideration, in the forms of Sara and Daniel, could be related to the Micro, Macro and Meso levels of interpersonal as well as intrapersonal interactions between the care personnel of the local adult care teams and the learning disability affected individuals. At the onset of the discussion, it is necessary, from the perspective of Kane and de Vries (2017), to concentrate upon the exclamation of the realisation that such cases, such as those involving Sara and Daniel, require close collaboration in between the health and social care service provisioning personnel such as the team members of the local adult care authority and the care recipients so that proper promotion of the dignified measures of care could be undertaken. In this context, the research of Le Gallez et al (2018) has recommended that the previously mentioned three pronged approach be undertaken. In terms of the micro operational level dynamics, the emphasis on the responsibility of individuals to maintain quality, responsiveness, accountability and effectiveness of care while having to operate with personnel with certain forms of disadvantages or disabilities such as those of Sara and Daniel. This closely involves the provisioning of respect and dignity to the adult care recipients and this denotes the measure of sincerity for the adult care team personnel towards the physically or psychologically vulnerable personnel. This involves consistent improvement in the interaction abilities of the adult care professionals to better suit the conditions of the care recipients and could also involve practices such as moderations in interpersonal skill based exchanges of information and attainment of directions of such interactions. Concentration of operational emphasis on individual communication skills, which, could have been better reflective of the understanding of the criticality of dignified care application for such vulnerable individuals such as Sara and Daniel, could have been an exemplary and effective approach on part of the local adult care personnel. The utilisation of interpersonal communication and operational skills, on behalf of the adult care operatives, to undertake certain initiatives to promote prevention of disrespect as well as better comprehension of the rights and development requirements of Sara and Daniel in terms of preservation of their dignity, would have been effective as well, from the micro operational perspectives. This could have been fruitful if, according to Werner (2015), the local adult care authorities could have instituted effective role modelling and awareness sessions in the training methods of such professionals who had been employed by such authorities. Furthermore, the adult care professionals and team members, from an effective communication based perspective, should have utilised the method of reflecting on their actions and also, should have invited feedback from the individuals under considerations such as Sara and Daniel concerning their reactions about the performance of the adult care services which they could have received. Such dual way communication and responsible handling of the situation could have enabled the local adult social care authorities and the associated personnel to integrate the working framework through which dignity maintenance could have been performed with greater effectiveness. This would have also permitted the adult care authorities, according to the opinion of Zarkowska and Clements (2018), to identify the extent, significance and value of recognising vulnerability of such disadvantageous personnel. Finally, the reporting of any violation of the principles of ethical operational behaviours in cases involving adults with learning and other forms of difficulties and disabilities, would have been effective from the perspective of maintaining the dignity and respect which individuals such as Sara and Daniel deserved in the provided case study.

Furthermore, the research perceptions of Lohne et al (2017) have indicated that the Meso operational level observation could involve the concentration of emphasis on the roles and performance of the organisation which has performed such adult care related activities. According to Mackelprang, Salsgiver and Salsgiver (2016), it is always the responsibility of the care authorities or organisations to ensure that the development of the most conducive environment for dignified care provisioning could become possible. The observed care intervention in the case of Sara and Daniel has been fraught with shortcomings as well as inefficacies. This could be highlighted, as per the research of Moss (2017), from the fact that it had taken the local adult care authorities more than six months to intervene or respond to the reception of the information of Sara getting married to Daniel, in the form of an enforced capacity assessment execution, in spite of the fact that neither Sara nor her mother had provided their consent to such an assessment. Furthermore, the case study has also outlined the fact that consistent effort had been invested by the adult care personnel for nearly one year to prevent the wedding on the basis of the learning disabilities and difficulties experienced by Daniel Drayton. This involves the exhibition of the perpetuation of the flawed and often vacuous stereotypical notion about such psychologically vulnerable personnel. According to Papastavrou, Efstathiou and Andreou (2016), this perpetuation of the improper notions, observed through the case study analysis, had become institutionalised in terms of the working processes of the local adult care organisation under consideration. The necessity of inter-organisational communication and modified working process management to better utilise the management skills of the adult care service providing personnel had not been realised by the adult social care authorities during the intervention in the case involving Sara and Daniel. Furthermore, the dearth of proper communication in between the field assessors and those of the organisational hierarchical personnel could be acknowledged from the fact that there had been a clear incompatibility of the logical and the actual outcomes of the capacity assessment study which had been enforced upon Sara. This has been elaborated by Percy (2018), as the blatant disregard of the acknowledgement of the assessors of Sara that she had proper and adequate understanding of the implications of different and complicated relationships including that of marriage, by the local adult social care management personnel. This resulted in the outcome of Sara having to fail in her capacity assessment which was framed on the basis of evaluation of her capability to sustain natural marital relationships. The premise of such an assessment was based on the supposed notion of prevention of abuse and exploitation of Sara by her spouse. However, the observations of the assessors of Sara had been summarily ignored in the final assessment outcome. According to the opinion of Rogers (2016), this has been the indication of an abject dissolution of inter-organisational communication and reportage of field based findings by the ground level working personnel to the lateral hierarchical positions concerning the entire adult social care framework. Thus, the direct outcome of this shortcoming of communication has been the regrettable disregard of the necessity to maintain the dignity and respect of such individuals with learning disabilities on part off the adult social care intervention efforts.

Finally, as has been observed by Sangiovanni (2017), the Macro level consideration is primarily reflective of the role of the respective regional or national government in terms of ensuring the maintenance of proper dignity and rights as well as respect for vulnerable personnel. In terms of the available case study, the involvement of the regional or the national government has been observed to be minimal. However, Sundel and Sundel (2017) have suggested that the role of the government would be of vital significance since it is always the prerogative of the governmental departments and authorities to deliver dignified care services to those who could deserve such service the most.

From a definitive and academic standpoint, it has been so far understood that the ethical principles of Dignity and Respect are concepts which are markedly subjective in nature. From a personal perspective, the study has driven home the realisation that such ethical principles are mostly reflective of the internal sense and perceptions of self-worth on part of the human beings. In this respect, the evaluation of the case study has been effective in terms of providing a greater clarified perspective concerning the influence of both Respect and Dignity having been expressive through a diverse range of factors of social, psychological and cultural contexts. Apart from these explicit realisations, the study has also provided the frame of academic reference that human dignity is primarily constituted by the social and administrative relations in between various individuals, including those with learning difficulties. Such ethical principles are mostly dependent on the social intervention approaches which could be underutilisation in the concurrent scenario. In terms of the analysed case study, the prevalent stereotypical and discriminatory perceptual standpoints exhibited by the local adult care authorities have been evident in the proposition of legal proceedings against Daniel for marrying Sara who is considered to be incapable of natural marital relationship maintenance on the basis of her severity of learning difficulties and the distorted observations of the adult care service personnel have resulted into the perception of Daniel, thus, becoming an abusive molester of Sara, in the opinion of the adult support personnel under consideration. Thus, the case study has firmly advanced the understanding, from a personalised perspective, concerning the experiences which are integrally associated with the aspects of necessity to preserve human rights and dignity while having to institute effective social and health wellbeing based care provisioning systems.

Reference List

• Altman, B.M. ed., 2016. International measurement of disability: Purpose, method and application (Vol. 61). Springer.
• Bastable, S.B., Sopczyk, D., Gramet, P. and Jacobs, K., 2019. Health professional as educator: Principles of teaching and learning. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
• Beckett, C., Maynard, A. and Jordan, P., 2017. Values and ethics in social work. Sage.
• Brady, N.C., Bruce, S., Goldman, A., Erickson, K., Mineo, B., Ogletree, B.T., Paul, D., Romski, M.A., Sevcik, R., Siegel, E. and Schoonover, J., 2016. Communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities: Guidance for assessment and intervention. American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities, 121(2), pp.121-138.
• Chadwick, R. and Gallagher, A., 2016. Ethics and nursing practice. Macmillan International Higher Education.
• Cigno, K. and Bourn, D., 2017. Cognitive-behavioural social work in practice. Routledge.
• Curryer, B., Stancliffe, R.J. and Dew, A., 2015. Self-determination: Adults with intellectual disability and their family. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 40(4), pp.394-399.
• Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Fuchs, L.S. and Barnes, M.A., 2018. Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. Guilford Publications.
• Goldsmith, L. and Skirton, H., 2015. Research involving people with a learning disability–methodological challenges and ethical considerations. Journal of Research in Nursing, 20(6), pp.435-446.
• Iezzoni, L.I., Matulewicz, H., Marsella, S.A., Warsett, K.S., Heaphy, D. and Donelan, K., 2017. Collaborative design of a health care experience survey for persons with disability. Disability and health journal, 10(2), pp.231-239.
• Jacobs, B.B., 2016. Respect for human dignity in nursing: Philosophical and practical perspectives. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research Archive, 32(2).
• Kane, J. and de Vries, K., 2017. Dignity in long-term care: An application of Nordenfelt's work. Nursing ethics, 24(6), pp.744-751.
• Le Gallez, I., Rix, K.J., Choong, K.A. and Dewson, H., 2018. Sexual rights, mental disorder and intellectual disability: principles and law. BJPsych Advances, 24(5), pp.334-345.
• Lohne, V., Høy, B., Lillestø, B., Sæteren, B., Heggestad, A.K.T., Aasgaard, T., Caspari, S., Rehnsfeldt, A., Råholm, M.B., Slettebø, Å. and Lindwall, L., 2017. Fostering dignity in the care of nursing home residents through slow caring. Nursing ethics, 24(7), pp.778-788.
• Mackelprang, R.W., Salsgiver, R.O. and Salsgiver, R., 2016. Disability: A diversity model approach in human service practice. Oxford University Press.
• Moss, B., 2017. Communication skills in health and social care. Sage. Papastavrou, E., Efstathiou, G. and Andreou, C., 2016. Nursing students’ perceptions of patient dignity. Nursing ethics, 23(1), pp.92-103
• Percy, S.L., 2018. Disability, civil rights, and public policy: The politics of implementation. University of Alabama Press. Rogers, C., 2016. Intellectual disability and being human: a care ethics model. Routledge. Sangiovanni, A., 2017. Humanity without Dignity: Moral Equality, Respect, and Human Rights. Harvard University Press.
• Sundel, M. and Sundel, S.S., 2017. Behavior change in the human services: Behavioral and cognitive principles and applications. Sage Publications.
• Vorhaus, J., 2015. Giving Voice to Profound Disability: Dignity, dependence and human capabilities. Routledge.
• Waycott, J., Morgans, A., Pedell, S., Ozanne, E., Vetere, F., Kulik, L. and Davis, H., 2015. Ethics in evaluating a sociotechnical intervention with socially isolated older adults. Qualitative health research, 25(11), pp.1518-1528.
• Werner, S., 2015. Public stigma and the perception of rights: Differences between intellectual and physical disabilities. Research in developmental disabilities, 38, pp.262-271.
• Zarkowska, E. and Clements, J., 2018. Problem behaviour and people with severe learning disabilities: the STAR approach. Routledge.

Looking for further insights on Resilience and Recovery? Click here.