儿童保护中的决策变异性:尊重、互动普遍主义与关怀伦理

IF 0.7 Q4 SOCIAL WORK Ethics and Social Welfare Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/17496535.2022.2073381
Emily Keddell
{"title":"儿童保护中的决策变异性:尊重、互动普遍主义与关怀伦理","authors":"Emily Keddell","doi":"10.1080/17496535.2022.2073381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article conceptualises theories of ethics relevant to the recognised problem of decision variability in child protection. Within this field, social workers are faced with multiple ethical imperatives when making decisions about children’s care. They must respond to justice principles concerned with duties and consequences, as well as ethical obligations created by the relational and contextual elements of each case. Recent scholarship on decision variability highlights the justice issues that arise when decisions in response to apparently similar cases differ. An ethical imperative is that similar cases should be treated ‘like for like’ so that children’s and family’s rights are upheld consistently. This article contends that ethical concepts relating to both universalist duties such as respect for persons, extended by the concept of interactive universalism, and contextual responses based on an ethic of care, help theorise the complexities of ethical decisions in child protection. These concepts develop a nuanced understanding of the ways social workers resist risk discourses, may make decisions reflecting the participation of service users, and contextual evaluations of risk based on understanding service user’s life histories. Understanding this combination helps explain the reasons behind variability, and evaluate the moral acceptability or otherwise of apparently variable decisions.","PeriodicalId":46151,"journal":{"name":"Ethics and Social Welfare","volume":"17 1","pages":"4 - 19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Decision Variability in Child Protection: Respect, Interactive Universalism and Ethics of Care\",\"authors\":\"Emily Keddell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17496535.2022.2073381\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article conceptualises theories of ethics relevant to the recognised problem of decision variability in child protection. Within this field, social workers are faced with multiple ethical imperatives when making decisions about children’s care. They must respond to justice principles concerned with duties and consequences, as well as ethical obligations created by the relational and contextual elements of each case. Recent scholarship on decision variability highlights the justice issues that arise when decisions in response to apparently similar cases differ. An ethical imperative is that similar cases should be treated ‘like for like’ so that children’s and family’s rights are upheld consistently. This article contends that ethical concepts relating to both universalist duties such as respect for persons, extended by the concept of interactive universalism, and contextual responses based on an ethic of care, help theorise the complexities of ethical decisions in child protection. These concepts develop a nuanced understanding of the ways social workers resist risk discourses, may make decisions reflecting the participation of service users, and contextual evaluations of risk based on understanding service user’s life histories. Understanding this combination helps explain the reasons behind variability, and evaluate the moral acceptability or otherwise of apparently variable decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46151,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics and Social Welfare\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"4 - 19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics and Social Welfare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2022.2073381\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics and Social Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2022.2073381","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本文概念化了与儿童保护中公认的决策变异性问题相关的伦理理论。在这一领域,社会工作者在做出关于儿童护理的决定时面临着多重道德要求。它们必须对与责任和后果有关的正义原则以及每一案件的关系和背景因素所产生的道德义务作出反应。最近关于决策可变性的学术研究强调了当对明显相似的案件作出不同的决定时所产生的正义问题。一个道德上的要求是,类似的案件应该“以牙还牙治”,这样儿童和家庭的权利才能得到持续的维护。本文认为,与普遍主义义务(如通过互动普遍主义概念扩展的对人的尊重)和基于关怀伦理的情境反应相关的伦理概念,有助于将儿童保护中伦理决策的复杂性理论化。这些概念发展了对社会工作者抵抗风险话语的方式的细致理解,可以做出反映服务用户参与的决策,以及基于了解服务用户生活史的风险情境评估。理解这种组合有助于解释可变性背后的原因,并评估道德可接受性或其他明显可变的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On Decision Variability in Child Protection: Respect, Interactive Universalism and Ethics of Care
ABSTRACT This article conceptualises theories of ethics relevant to the recognised problem of decision variability in child protection. Within this field, social workers are faced with multiple ethical imperatives when making decisions about children’s care. They must respond to justice principles concerned with duties and consequences, as well as ethical obligations created by the relational and contextual elements of each case. Recent scholarship on decision variability highlights the justice issues that arise when decisions in response to apparently similar cases differ. An ethical imperative is that similar cases should be treated ‘like for like’ so that children’s and family’s rights are upheld consistently. This article contends that ethical concepts relating to both universalist duties such as respect for persons, extended by the concept of interactive universalism, and contextual responses based on an ethic of care, help theorise the complexities of ethical decisions in child protection. These concepts develop a nuanced understanding of the ways social workers resist risk discourses, may make decisions reflecting the participation of service users, and contextual evaluations of risk based on understanding service user’s life histories. Understanding this combination helps explain the reasons behind variability, and evaluate the moral acceptability or otherwise of apparently variable decisions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Ethics and Social Welfare publishes articles of a critical and reflective nature concerned with the ethical issues surrounding social welfare practice and policy. It has a particular focus on social work (including practice with individuals, families and small groups), social care, youth and community work and related professions. The aim of the journal is to encourage dialogue and debate across social, intercultural and international boundaries on the serious ethical issues relating to professional interventions into social life. Through this we hope to contribute towards deepening understandings and further ethical practice in the field of social welfare. The journal welcomes material in a variety of formats, including high quality peer-reviewed academic papers, reflections, debates and commentaries on policy and practice, book reviews and review articles. We actively encourage a diverse range of contributions from academic and field practitioners, voluntary workers, service users, carers and people bringing the perspectives of oppressed groups. Contributions might include reports on research studies on the influence of values and ethics in social welfare practice, education and organisational structures, theoretical papers discussing the evolution of social welfare values and ethics, linked to contemporary philosophical, social and ethical thought, accounts of ethical issues, problems and dilemmas in practice, and reflections on the ethics and values of policy and organisational development. The journal aims for the highest standards in its published material. All material submitted to the journal is subject to a process of assessment and evaluation through the Editors and through peer review.
期刊最新文献
A Qualitative Case Study of Undergraduate Social Care Students’ Approaches to Social Justice in a Finnish Context Can Street-Level Bureaucrats Assist with Material Resources? Naming, Trivializing and Privatizing Economic Abuse in Israel In the Periphery: Ethical Considerations When Indirectly Involving Children in Research Ethics of Youth Work Practice in the Twenty-First Century: Change, Challenge and Opportunity Towards a Notion of Relational Sacrifices: Nursing During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Wuhan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1