ETHICAL THEORIES

SLIDE 1 – introduction.

Ethical theories provide part of the decision-making foundation for Decision Making When

Ethics Are In Play because these theories represent the viewpoints from which individuals

seek guidance as they make decisions. Each theory emphasizes different points – a different

decision-making style or a decision rule—such as predicting the outcome and following one’s

duties to others in order to reach what the individual considers an ethically correct decision.

In order to understand ethical decision making, it is important for students to realize that not

everyone makes decisions in the same way, using the same information, employing the same

decision rules. In order to further understand ethical theory, there must be some understanding of a
common set of goals that decision makers seek to achieve in order to be successful.

Four of these goals include beneficence, least harm, respect for autonomy, and justice.

SLIDE 2 - ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

Beneficence

The principle of beneficence guides the decision maker to do what is right and good.

This priority to “do good” makes an ethical perspective and possible solution to an ethical

dilemma acceptable. This principle is also related to the principle of utility, which states

that we should attempt to generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in the

world. This principle stipulates that ethical theories should strive to achieve the greatest amount of
good because people benefit from the most good. This principle is mainly

associated with the utilitarian ethical theory discussed later in this set of notes.

Least Harm

Similar to beneficence, least harm deals with situations in which no choice appears beneficial. In such
cases, decision makers seek to choose to do the least harm possible and to do

harm to the fewest people. Students might argue that people have a greater responsibility

to “do no harm” than to take steps to benefit others. For example, a student has a larger

responsibility to simply walk past a teacher in the hallway rather than to make derogatory

remarks about that teacher as he/she walks past even though the student had failed that

teacher’s class.
Respect for Autonomy

This principle states that decision making should focus on allowing people to be autonomous—to be
able to make decisions that apply to their lives. Thus, people should have

control over their lives as much as possible because they are the only people who completely
understand their chosen type of lifestyle. Ask students if they agree. Are there

limits to autonomy? Each individual deserves respect because only he/she has had those

exact life experiences and understands his emotions, motivations, and physical capabilities

in such an intimate manner. In essence, this ethical principle is an extension of the ethical principle of
beneficence because a person who is independent usually prefers to have

control over his life experiences in order to obtain the lifestyle that he/she enjoys.

Justice

The justice ethical principle states that decision makers should focus on actions that are

fair to those involved. This means that ethical decisions should be consistent with the

ethical theory unless extenuating circumstances that can be justified exist in the case. This

also means that cases with extenuating circumstances must contain a significant and vital

difference from similar cases that justify the inconsistent decision.

SLIDE 3 – FORMS OF ETHICAL THEORIES

For individuals, the ethical theory they employ for decision making guidance emphasizes

aspects of an ethical dilemma important to them and leads them to the most ethically

correct resolution according to the guidelines within the ethical theory itself. Four broad

categories of ethical theory include deontology, utilitarianism, rights, and virtues.

Deontology

The deontological class of ethical theories states that people should adhere to their obligations and
duties when engaged in decision making when ethics are in play. This means

that a person will follow his or her obligations to another individual or society because

upholding one’s duty is what is considered ethically correct. For instance, a deontologist

will always keep his promises to a friend and will follow the law. A person who adheres to

deontological theory will produce very consistent decisions since they will be based on the

individual’s set duties.

Deontology contains many positive attributes, but it also contains flaws. One flaw is that
there is no rationale or logical basis for deciding an individual’s duties. For instance, a businessperson
may decide that it is his/her duty to always be on time to meetings. Although this

appears to be something good, we do not know why the person chose to make this his duty.

Ask students what reasons they might provide for this behavior. Sometimes, a person’s

duties are in conflict. For instance, if the business person who must be on time to meetings is

running late, how is he/she supposed to drive? Is speeding breaking his/her duty to society to

uphold the law, or is the businessperson supposed to arrive at the meeting late, not fulfilling

the duty to be on time? Ask students how they would rectify the conflicting obligations to

arrive at an a clear ethically-correct resolution. Also ask students to bring into play the

consideration of the welfare of others as a result of the business person’s decision.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarian ethical theories are based on one’s ability to predict the consequences of an

action. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the

one that is ethically correct. There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and

rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism subscribes precisely to the definition of utilitarianism—a person
performs the acts that benefit the most people, regardless of personal

feelings or the societal constraints such as laws. Rule utilitarianism takes into account the

law and is concerned with fairness. A rule utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but

through the fairest and most just means available. Therefore, added benefits of rule utilitarianism are
that it values justice and includes beneficence at the same time.

Both act and rule utilitarianism have disadvantages. Although people can use their life

experiences to attempt to predict outcomes, no one can be certain that his/her predictions

will be accurate. Uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the utilitarian decision maker
appear unethical as time passes, as the choice made did not benefit the most

people as predicted.

Another assumption that a utilitarian decision maker must make concerns his/her ability

to compare the various types of consequences against each other on a similar scale. But,

comparing material gains, such as money, against intangible gains, such as happiness, is

very difficult since their qualities differ to such a large extent.

An act utilitarian decision maker is concerned with achieving the maximum good. Thus,
one individual’s rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater number of

people. In other words, act utilitarianism is not always concerned with justice, beneficence or autonomy
for an individual if oppressing the individual leads to the solution that benefits majority of people.

Still another source of challenge with act utilitarian decision makers occurs when an

individual faces one set of variable conditions and then suddenly experiences changes in

those conditions. The change in conditions may lead to a change in the original decision—being be nice
to someone one moment and then dislike them the next moment

because the situation has changed, and liking the person is no longer beneficial to the

most people.

In rule utilitarianism, there is the possibility of conflicting rules. Recall the example of

the business person running late for a meeting. Suppose the business person happens

to be the CEO, who may believe that it is ethically correct to arrive at important meetings on time as the
members of the company will benefit from this decision. The CEO

may encounter conflicting ideas about what is ethically correct if he/she is running late.

Yet, the CEO believes that he/she should follow the law because this benefits society.

Simultaneously, he/she believes that it is ethically correct to be on time for his meeting

because it is a meeting that also benefits the society. There appears to be no ethically correct answer for
this scenario.

Rights

In ethical theories based on rights, the rights established by a society are protected and

given the highest priority. Rights are considered to be ethically correct and valid since a

large population endorses them. Individuals may also bestow rights upon others if they

have the ability and resources to do so. For example, a person may say that her friend may

borrow her laptop for the afternoon. The friend who was given the ability to borrow the

laptop now has a right to the laptop in the afternoon.

A major complication of this theory on a larger scale is that one must decipher what the

characteristics of a right are in a society. The society has to determine what rights it wants

to uphold and give to its citizens. In order for a society to determine what rights it wants

to enact, it must decide what the society’s goals and ethical priorities are. Therefore, in

order for the rights theory to be useful, it must be used in conjunction with another
ethical theory that will consistently explain the goals of the society. For example in

America people have the right to choose their religion because this right is upheld in the

Constitution. One of the goals of the Founding Fathers’ of America was to uphold this

right to freedom of religion.

Virtue

The virtue ethical theory judges a person by his/her character rather than by an action

that may deviate from his/her normal behavior. It takes the person’s morals, reputation,

and motivation into account when rating an unusual and irregular behavior that is considered unethical.
For instance, if a person plagiarized a passage that was later detected by

a peer, the peer who knows the person well will understand the person’s character and will

judge the friend accordingly. If the plagiarizer normally follows the rules and has good

standing amongst his colleagues, the peer who encounters the plagiarized passage may be

able to judge his friend more leniently. Perhaps the researcher had a late night and simply

forgot to credit his or her source appropriately. Conversely, a person who has a reputation

for academic misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for plagiarizing because of

his/her consistent past of unethical behavior.

One weakness of virtue ethical theory is that it does not take into consideration a person’s

change in moral character. For example, a scientist who may have made mistakes in the

past may honestly have the same late night story as the scientist in good standing. Neither

of these scientists intentionally plagiarized, but the act was still committed. On the other

hand, a researcher may have a sudden change from moral to immoral character may go

unnoticed until a significant amount of evidence mounts up against him/herSLIDES 4-6 - SELECTED
PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL CONDUCT

When individuals find themselves in a decision-making situation when ethics are in play,

there are a variety of ethical theories (decision rules) which provide decision-making

guidance as individuals strive to make ethically correct answers. Each ethical theory

attempts to adhere to the ethical principles that lead to success when trying to reach the

best decision. Most individuals adopt a preferred decision-making style (e.g. do unto

others ... ), but might adjust it depending on decision circumstances. As decision makers, they soon
discover that others have adopted different decision rules. Thus, a team of
decision makers must first understand the decision-making styles and decision rules of

all members of the team.

SLIDES 7 – 9 - A TAXONOMY OF ETHICAL TYPES

There are three different approaches to examining how ethical theories (differing decisionmaking styles
and decision rules) impact decision making. The first group, entitled,

“Selected Principles of Ethical Conduct,” present different ethical theories or decision

making styles. The second group, entitled “A Taxonomy of Ethical Types” also provides

a look at different decision-making styles, presenting some of the positives and negatives

associated with each. The third group, entitled “Models of Personal and Organizational

Development,” also deals with decision-making styles but presents them in a hierarchy

from simple to more sophisticated.

SLIDES 10-12 - MODELS OF PERSONAL AND

ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

From Cognitive Moral Development (as espoused by Lawrence Kohlberg in The Philosophy of

Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice, 1981, HarperCollins Publishers)

Cognitive Moral Development asserts that ethics education is possible. Just as people

develop mentally, physically, and emotionally, they develop a moral cognizance. Using

critical thinking and decision-making tactics such as the Socratic method, people can

solve their ethical dilemmas. Kohlberg taught that there were six stages of ethical thinking, each stage
being of greater maturity than the previous one. By delineating these

levels, we are allowed to know and test our own thinking and decision making. This

helps individuals know themselves better and challenges them to move on to a higher

level of thinking.

To examine how different ethical theories (decision-making styles and decision rules

enter into team decision making, the following questions are presented.

1. Ask students to play the role of a hospital administrator who has been asked to set

up an Ethics Task Force in the hospital. The task force will deal with ethical dilemmas that may confront
hospital staff and advise in establishing ethical guidelines for

the treatment of patients. (a) What kind of persons would you look for to fill this

position? What values would you want them to hold? What types of ethical sensitivity
would you be looking for? (b) What basic ethical principles would you advise the task

force to follow?

2. Now tell students they are charged with the same task described in Question #1, but

this time for a market research firm instead of a hospital. What would the differences

be? If there are any differences, what conclusions would you draw about the way we

define the moral ballpark?

3. An undergraduate student published A Students’ Guide to Good Grades 10. This book

was written to help students learn how to cheat. You can ask students many questions about this: What
ethical issues do you see associated with publishing such a

book? Should the campus bookstore carry it? Why or why not? Should the campus newspaper carry
advertisements for the book? Similarly, should the campus newspaper

carry advertisements for companies that will write students’ research papers for them?

Again, what are the relevant ethical considerations here? Are these issues in the ethical

ballpark? Why or why not? What is the ethical issue that you are most undecided

about? Describe the pros and cons relating to this issue. How do you go about arriving at a decision
when it is unavoidable?

What’s the Difference Between Religion and Ethics?

Photo of author

By The Editors

Updated on December 13, 2022

When most people think of religion, they think of ethics. After all, it’s often religions that teach us what’s
right and what’s wrong. But what is the difference between religion and ethics?

In this blog post, we’ll go over the differences between these two concepts and discuss some of the key
points that set them apart. We hope this information will be helpful for you in understanding these
important topics.

What Is Religion?

Defining religion is difficult because there are so many different interpretations and understandings of
the term. Generally speaking, however, religion can be considered a system of beliefs and practices
based on a shared worldview.
This worldview usually includes a set of shared moral values as well as a shared interpretation of
religious texts. Religion can also provide its adherents with a sense of community and identity.

In addition, religion may be broadly defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman, controlling
power, especially a personal god or gods. It’s often associated with rituals and may also involve the
study of sacred texts. Religion is often seen as a source of morality and ethics and may provide comfort
in difficult times.

Although there are many different religions in the world, they all share some common characteristics. All
religions have some sort of mythology or story about the creation of the world and how man came to be
in it. They also usually have a code of ethics or a set of moral guidelines, as well as rituals and
ceremonies that are practiced regularly. Most religions have some kind of social organization, such as
churches or temples, where believers can gather to worship and learn more about their faith.

One of the most important aspects of religion is that it often gives people a sense of meaning and
purpose in life. This can be especially important for people who may be unable to find meaning in other
areas of their lives, such as work or family. Religion may also give people comfort in times of difficulty
and provide them with a support network of like-minded people.

Overall, religion is an important part of many people’s lives. While some religions can be quite dogmatic
and restrictive, most religions are quite flexible and allow for a great deal of personal interpretation.
This makes religion a good choice for people who are looking for meaning and purpose in their lives.

What Is Ethics?

Ethics is a philosophical field that deals with the question of how people should live their lives. It asks
what is the right thing to do in a particular situation and attempts to provide a framework for making
ethical decisions.

Throughout history, many different ethical theories have been put forth, but there is no single correct
answer to ethical questions. Rather, different people may come to different conclusions based on their
own values and beliefs.

One of the key aspects of ethics is its emphasis on practicality. Rather than proposing abstract theories,
ethics seeks to provide guidance on how to live a good life in the real world.
This is evident in the various ethical frameworks that have been developed over the years, such as
utilitarianism and deontology. These frameworks give people the opportunity to weigh different options
and make choices that they believe will lead to the best possible outcome.

Ethics is also important because it helps promote accountability. By providing guidelines for making
moral decisions, ethics enables people to hold themselves and others accountable for their actions. This
is evident in the concept of responsibility, which is at the heart of many ethical theories. Responsibility
allows us to reflect on our own actions and ask ourselves whether we have lived up to our values and
beliefs.

Ultimately, ethics is about creating a society based on shared values and principles. If we work together
to develop a common understanding of right and wrong, we can create a society that is fairer and more
just for everyone.

What’s the Difference Between Religion and Ethics?

From an academic perspective, there is a clear distinction between religion and ethics. Religion is usually
based on faith, while ethics is based on reason and logic. Religion often involves rituals and
commandments that may be blindly followed without questioning their validity or reason. Ethics, on the
other hand, is always open to question and discussion. It is based on the principle that people can use
their reason to find the best path for their lives.

This distinction is important because it can help us better understand the world around us. For example,
when we see someone committing a heinous act, we can ask ourselves whether they did so because of
their religious beliefs or because of their ethical beliefs. If it was their religious beliefs that drove them
to do this act, we may need to try to understand that religion to understand why they did what they did.
If it was their ethical beliefs that drove them to do the deed, then we can try to figure out what led them
to believe that it was the right thing to do.

Another key difference is that religion presupposes a divine command, whereas ethics doesn’t. Religion
assumes that there is an objective moral order emanating from a higher power, whether it’s a deity or
some other force. Ethics, on the other hand, is a value system that people create for themselves.

Another important difference is that religion is often based on faith, while ethics can be based on
reason. Ethics can also be applied in situations where there’s no religious authority.
So what does this mean for believers and non-believers?

For believers, religious morality can be a guide in their lives. It gives them a set of principles to live by
that, while based on faith. For non-believers, ethics can be a similar guide in their lives. Even if they
don’t believe in divine power, they can still use reason to decide what’s right and wrong. Neither religion
nor ethics are perfect systems, but both can provide a framework for us to live our lives as best we can.
Here are a few other differences between these two terms.

Religion Is Often About Salvation or Redemption, While Ethics Is About Improving the World We Live In

Religion teaches us that we are sinners who need to be saved from God’s wrath, while ethics teaches us
how to live in a way that is consistent with our values. Religion can be seen as an escape from the world,
while ethics is about making the world a better place.

Religion may tell us to accept things as they are, while ethics tells us that we can always strive to make
things better. Religion often focuses on personal salvation, while ethics focuses on creating a better
society for all.

There’s nothing wrong with seeking salvation or redemption, but it’s important to remember that we
can also work to improve the world in which we live. Ethics provide us with a framework for our lives.
We can use ethical principles to guide our decisions and make the world a better place.

We can work to ensure that all people have food and a roof over their heads, that people are treated
fairly and with respect, and that we protect the environment. We can also promote peace and
compassion in the world.

Religion Tends to Be Dogmatic and Static, While Ethics Always Evolves as Our Understanding of Morality
Grows

One of the main reasons religion is dogmatic and static is that it relies on scriptures that are considered
infallible. These scriptures are often interpreted very literally, which means there may be very little
room for interpretation or change. This can lead to religious groups becoming intolerant of other groups
who interpret the scriptures differently, and it can also lead to stagnation in moral values.

In contrast, ethics always evolve as our understanding of morality grows. This is because ethics isn’t
based on a set of scriptures but on our understanding of what’s right and wrong. This means that it may
change as our understanding of morality changes, allowing for more flexibility and evolution.

This difference between religion and ethics is important because it means that religious groups may be
intolerant of other groups that have different beliefs, while ethical groups may accept other beliefs as
long as they stay within the boundaries of what’s considered ethical. It also means that religious groups
may stagnate in terms of their moral values, while ethical groups may evolve as our understanding of
morality changes.

Ethics Is Usually Secular, While Religions Can Be Either Secular or Religious

A secular religion is one in which the religious aspects are downplayed or removed altogether. A
religious religion, on the other hand, emphasizes the religious aspects of the faith.

There are a few reasons why ethics tend to be secular, while religions can be either secular or religious.
One reason is that religions often contain certain doctrines and beliefs that aren’t universally accepted.
For example, some religions teach that there’s only one way to achieve salvation, while others teach
that there are multiple paths to salvation. In addition, religions often have rituals and ceremonies that
are specific to the particular faith. These rituals and ceremonies can be difficult to follow for people who
don’t share the same religious beliefs.

Ethics, on the other hand, don’t usually contain specific doctrines or beliefs. Instead, they focus on
general principles to guide people’s behavior. In addition, ethical principles usually don’t include rituals
or ceremonies. This makes them more accessible to people who don’t share the same religious beliefs.

Finally, many people believe that ethics is more rational than religion. Ethics is about using reason and
logic to decide right and wrong behavior, while religion often relies on faith and intuition.
This difference is evident in the way people debate ethical and religious issues. In ethical debates,
people usually use evidence and arguments to support their positions. In religious debates, on the other
hand, people often rely on their faith and personal experiences.

Ethics Is a Matter of Personal Choice, While Religion Is Often a Matter of Public Confession

In recent decades, the issue of ethics has moved to the forefront of public consciousness. This is largely
due to technological advances that have enabled a greater degree of transparency in both personal and
professional lives. While many argue that ethics is a matter of personal choice, others claim that
religious beliefs should take precedence over ethical considerations.

One of the key arguments in support of the idea that ethics is a personal choice is that there’s no single
correct answer to ethical questions. What might be considered ethical in one situation may not be
ethical in another.

For example, some people believe that it’s unethical to lie, while others believe that lying is sometimes
necessary. There’s no single correct answer to this question, and it’s up to each individual to decide
what they consider ethical.

Religion, on the other hand, often involves a public confession of beliefs. For example, many religions
require their followers to recite certain prayers or creeds. Although these prayers and creeds leave some
room for personal interpretation, they usually contain a set of beliefs that all members of the religion
agree upon. This means that religion often takes precedence over individual beliefs, which can lead to
conflict if someone disagrees with the official stance of their religion.

Ethics Are Universal, Whereas Religion Is Often Tied to a Particular Culture or Nationality

The belief that ethics are universal and that religion is often tied to a particular culture or nationality is
widespread. Many people argue that ethics is based on natural principles that exist in all cultures and
that while religions contain ethical teachings, the religious aspects of those teachings are not what make
them ethical. Rather, it’s the common understanding of these principles by all people in a culture that
makes them ethical.

Others argue that certain ethical principles are unique to certain religions and may not be understood or
shared by people from other religions or cultures. They claim that it’s the religious nature of these
principles that make them ethical.
Still, others maintain that while there may be some overlap in the ethical teachings of various religions,
the differences between them are so great that it is not possible to say that any one religion has a
monopoly on ethics.

There are likely truths to be found on both sides. What does seem clear, however, is that ethics isn’t
limited to any one religion or culture and that it can be understood and shared by people from different
backgrounds.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do ethics and religion connect?

This question has been asked for centuries without an answer that satisfies everyone. Some people
believe that ethics and religion are two completely separate fields, while others think that they are
deeply intertwined.

One of the most obvious connections between ethics and religion is the idea of right and wrong.
Religious teachings often contain lists of behaviors that are considered morally good or bad.

The Ten Commandments in the Bible, for example, contain a set of specific moral guidelines. Religion
can also provide a framework for understanding why certain actions are considered unethical. For
example, some religious teachings state that humans are flawed and that sinfulness is the root of all
wrongdoing.

Another link between ethics and religion is the idea that morality is absolute. Many religious teachings
assert that there’s only one right way to behave and that deviation from that way will result in
punishment in the afterlife. This can lead to a strong sense of morality and ethics, as well as a focus on
personal behavior. Religion can also provide comfort in difficult times, as it often offers hope for
salvation or redemption. Some specific ethical concepts are closely related to religion.

For example, the concept of sin is often linked to religious beliefs. Other examples include the idea of
karma, the belief that good deeds lead to good outcomes in this life, and the principle of charity, which
encourages people to help others who are in need.

At the same time, it’s important to note that not all religious beliefs are ethical per se. For example,
some religious teachings may condone violence or intolerance toward certain groups of people.
Therefore, it’s important for people to critically examine their religious beliefs and find out which of
them are consistent with their own ethical values.

How does religion affect ethical behavior?

First, religious texts often contain specific moral guidelines that can serve as the basis for ethical
decision-making. Second, religious communities can provide support and accountability for ethical
behavior. Third, religious beliefs can inspire people to act ethically.

One of the benefits of specific moral guidelines from religious texts is that they can help create shared
ethical standards for a community. This can be especially useful when there are no clear secular or legal
standards to refer to.

Another benefit of a religious community supporting and holding people accountable for ethical
behavior is that it can help prevent unethical actions. In some cases, members of a community may be
punished or ostracized for immoral behavior, which can be a powerful deterrent. In addition, religious
communities can give people the opportunity to make amends for unethical behavior.

One of the most important ways religion can influence ethical behavior is by inspiring people to do good
deeds. Many religious texts contain stories of heroes who behaved ethically in the face of great
adversity. These stories can motivate people to emulate the virtues of these heroes and to strive to do
good in the world themselves.

What are some ethical issues in religion?

One of the biggest ethical issues in religion is the question of how to reconcile religious beliefs with
modern secular morality. This is especially difficult for religions that have strict rules about sex and
sexuality, as these rules often conflict with contemporary views on gender equality and LGBT rights.
There have been cases where religious groups have tried to impose their views on the rest of society, for
example by trying to ban same-sex marriage.

In addition, there are also ethical issues related to how people treat each other in the name of religion.
One example is discrimination against minorities. Some religions teach that certain groups of people are
inferior or sinful and that they should be treated differently than other people. This can lead to
discrimination against minorities such as women, LGBT people, or Muslims. It can also lead to violence
against these groups.
Another example is how religion can be used to justify harmful actions, such as violence against
innocent people. In some cases, religious extremists have used religious teachings to support their own
violent agenda. This has led to several tragic incidents, such as the September 11 attacks and the Charlie
Hebdo shooting.

Religion may also lead to unethical behavior when people use it as an excuse to commit crimes. Some
religious people believe they can commit any crime they want as long as they repent afterward and ask
God for forgiveness. This can lead to things like child abuse, sexual assault, murder, and terrorism.

There are also ethical problems related to how religions handle money. One example is when religious
organizations misuse their members’ donations. Sometimes religious organizations use the donated
money for their own benefit instead of using it for charitable purposes.

Another example is when religious leaders demand money from their followers in exchange for salvation
or spiritual blessings. This can be extremely harmful to poor people who cannot afford these fees.

Each person’s beliefs play a role in how they view these ethical dilemmas. Some people may think that
certain actions are morally wrong, while others believe that everything is permissible in the name of
their God. Regardless of your personal beliefs, it’s important to be aware of the various ethical issues in
religious texts and teachings.

Can you have ethics without religion?

Yes, ethics can exist without religion. Some people may be guided by religious teachings or principles to
create their personal code of ethics, but this isn’t a requirement. There are many examples of people
who have lived good lives without religion, and there are also many religions that aren’t concerned with
ethics.

People can create their own code of ethics based on their own morals and values. This code can be
inspired by religion, but it doesn’t have to be. It’s important to have an ethical code to live by, whether
you believe in a religion or not. This code helps us make choices that are consistent with our beliefs and
values and helps us live our lives in the way we find meaningful and fulfilling.
Even though religion isn’t necessary for ethics, it can be helpful for some people. If a person’s morals
and values closely align with the teachings of a particular religion, following the ethical guidelines of that
religion can be a way to live one’s life in accordance with one’s beliefs. However, many people don’t
belong to a particular religion but still live ethical life based on their personal values.

Ultimately, everyone must decide for themselves what is important to them and how they want to live
their lives. Whether you believe in a religion or not is ultimately irrelevant; what matters is how you
treat others and how you live your life according to your own values.

Conclusion

We can see that there is a clear distinction between religion and ethics. Religion is based on faith, while
ethics is based on reason. Even though both concepts may have overlapping features, they ultimately
serve different purposes in society. We hope this article has helped to clarify the difference between
these two important concepts.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Moral Standard

August 26, 2017

A moral standard refers to the norms which we have about the types of actions which we believe to be
morally acceptable and morally unacceptable. Specifically, moral standards deal with matters which can
either seriously harm or seriously benefit human beings. The validity of moral standards comes from the
line of reasoning that was taken to back or support them, and thus are not able to be formed or changed
by particular bodies of authority.
Recommended

Recommended Content

Social Work vs. Sociology: What’s the Difference?

Read More

Recommended Content

Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference?

Read More

Recommended Content

Anti-Social vs. Asocial: What’s the Difference?

Read More

Photo of author

The Editors

Recent Posts

What is Poetry? A Brief History, Characteristics & Forms

Why Are Memories Important? (17 Valuable Reasons)

Why Are Oil Changes Important? (8 Reasons)

Why Is Ergonomics Important? (8 Reasons)

Why Is Consent Important? (11 Reasons)

About Us – Contact – Privacy Policy

Enlightio’s content is for informational and educational purposes only. Our website is not intended to be
a substitute for professional advice.

© 2023 Enlightio

What is Deviance?

Table of Contents

Deviance refers to rule-breaking behaviour of some kind which fails to conform to the norms and
expectations of a particular society or social group.
Deviance is closely related to the concept of crime, which is law breaking behaviour. Criminal behaviour
is usually deviant, but not all deviant behaviour is criminal.

The concept of deviance is more difficult to define than crime. Deviance includes both criminal and non-
criminal acts, but it is quite difficult to pin down what members of any society or groups actually regard
as deviant behaviour. Downes and Rock (2007) suggest that ambiguity is a key feature of rule-breaking,
as people are frequently unsure whether a particular episode is truly deviant or what deviance is. Their
judgement will depend on the context in which it occurs, who the person is, what they know about them
and what their motives might be.

Societal and Situational Deviance

Plummer (1979) discusses two aspects of defining deviance, using the concepts of societal deviance and
situational deviance.

Societal deviance refers to forms of deviance that most members of a society regard as deviant because
they share similar ideas about approved and unapproved behaviour – murder, rape, child abuse and
driving over the alcohol limit in the UK generally fall into this category.

Situational deviance refers to the way in which an act being seen as deviant or not depends on the
context or location in which it takes place. These two conceptions of deviance suggest that, while there
may be some acts that many people agree are deviant in one society, those acts defined as deviant will
vary between groups within a society. Whether or not an act is seen as deviant often depends on:

The historical period – definitions of deviance change over time in the same society as standards of
normal behaviour change. For example, cigarette smoking used to be very popular, now it is illegal to
smoke in restaurants or buses.
The place or context – nudity is often seen as deviant in public (though in itself it is never criminal), but
rarely in private; playing loud music is deviant on public transport, but not at music festivals, and
drinking to excess is deviant almost anywhere, but not necessarily in pubs or clubs.

The social group – What may be regarded as unacceptable at a societal level may be regarded as
acceptable in small groups or even whole age cohorts – binge drinking and sexual promiscuity are two
such examples.

The context dependency of deviance

The context dependency of deviance simply refers to the idea that deviance is socially constructed –
whether or not an act is seen as deviant depends on the historical period, the place, and the group
witnessing the act.

The context dependency of deviance can be illustrated by a simple example:

Wearing a mini skirt is Deviant in Saudi Arabia:

But its clearly not on Tik Tok in Western Culture…

Task: Try to come up with your own examples which illustrate the Context Dependency of Deviance.

Discussion Question: Is there any act which is inherently deviant (deviant in every context)?

This material forms part of the introduction to the Crime and Deviance option within A-level Sociology

Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

Posted

October 28, 2020

In

Crime and Deviance

By

Karl Thompson

Tags:

Deviance

Comments

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

ReviseSociology

Blog at WordPress.com.
11
 The Indian Journal of Medical Research

Wolters Kluwer -- Medknow Publications

Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to die

Suresh Bada Math and Santosh K. Chaturvedi
Additional article information

The word euthanasia, originated in Greece means a good death1. Euthanasia

encompasses various dimensions, from active (introducing something to cause
death) to passive (withholding treatment or supportive measures); voluntary
(consent) to involuntary (consent from guardian) and physician assisted (where
physician's prescribe the medicine and patient or the third party administers the
medication to cause death)2,3. Request for premature ending of life has contributed
to the debate about the role of such practices in contemporary health care. This
debate cuts across complex and dynamic aspects such as, legal, ethical, human
rights, health, religious, economic, spiritual, social and cultural aspects of the
civilised society. Here we argue this complex issue from both the supporters and
opponents’ perspectives, and also attempts to present the plight of the sufferers and
their caregivers. The objective is to discuss the subject of euthanasia from the
medical and human rights perspective given the background of the recent Supreme
Court judgement3 in this context.
In India abetment of suicide and attempt to suicide are both criminal offences. In
1994, constitutional validity of Indian Penal Code Section (IPC Sec) 309 was
challenged in the Supreme Court4. The Supreme Court declared that IPC Sec 309 is
unconstitutional, under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the constitution in a landmark
judgement4. In 1996, an interesting case of abetment of commission of suicide (IPC
Sec 306) came to Supreme Court5. The accused were convicted in the trial court
and later the conviction was upheld by the High Court. They appealed to the
Supreme Court and contended that ‘right to die’ be included in Article 21 of the
Constitution and any person abetting the commission of suicide by anyone is
merely assisting in the enforcement of the fundamental right under Article 21;
hence their punishment is violation of Article 21. This made the Supreme Court to
rethink and to reconsider the decision of right to die. Immediately the matter was
referred to a Constitution Bench of the Indian Supreme Court. The Court held that
the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to
die5.
Regarding suicide, the Supreme Court reconsidered its decision on suicide.
Abetment of suicide (IPC Sec 306) and attempt to suicide (IPC Sec 309) are two
distinct offences, hence Section 306 can survive independent of Section 309. It has
also clearly stated that a person attempts suicide in a depression, and hence he
needs help, rather than punishment. Therefore, the Supreme Court has
recommended to Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 from
the Indian Penal Code3.

Arguments against euthanasia

Eliminating the invalid: Euthanasia opposers argue that if we embrace ‘the right to
death with dignity’, people with incurable and debilitating illnesses will be
disposed from our civilised society. The practice of palliative care counters this
view, as palliative care would provide relief from distressing symptoms and pain,
and support to the patient as well as the care giver. Palliative care is an active,
compassionate and creative care for the dying6.
Constitution of India: ‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but
suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible
and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’. It is the duty of the State to
protect life and the physician's duty to provide care and not to harm patients. If
euthanasia is legalised, then there is a grave apprehension that the State may refuse
to invest in health (working towards Right to life). Legalised euthanasia has led to
a severe decline in the quality of care for terminally-ill patients in Holland 7. Hence,
in a welfare state there should not be any role of euthanasia in any form.
Symptom of mental illness: Attempts to suicide or completed suicide are commonly
seen in patients suffering from depression8, schizophrenia9 and substance users10. It
is also documented in patients suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder11.
Hence, it is essential to assess the mental status of the individual seeking for
euthanasia. In classical teaching, attempt to suicide is a psychiatric emergency and
it is considered as a desperate call for help or assistance. Several guidelines have
been formulated for management of suicidal patients in psychiatry12. Hence,
attempted suicide is considered as a sign of mental illness13.
Malafide intention: In the era of declining morality and justice, there is a
possibility of misusing euthanasia by family members or relatives for inheriting the
property of the patient. The Supreme Court has also raised this issue in the recent
judgement3. ‘Mercy killing’ should not lead to ‘killing mercy’ in the hands of the
noble medical professionals. Hence, to keep control over the medical professionals,
the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics)
Regulations, 2002 discusses euthanasia briefly in Chapter 6, Section 6.7 and it is in
accordance with the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 199414.
There is an urgent need to protect patients and also medical practitioners caring the
terminally ill patients from unnecessary lawsuit. Law commission had submitted a
report (no-196) to the government on this issue15.
Emphasis on care: Earlier majority of them died before they reached the hospital
but now it is converse. Now sciences had advanced to the extent, life can be
prolonged but not to that extent of bringing back the dead one. This phenomenon
has raised a complex situation. Earlier diseases outcome was discussed in terms of
‘CURE’ but in the contemporary world of diseases such as cancer, Aids, diabetes,
hypertension and mental illness are debated in terms best ‘CARE’, since cure is
distant. The principle is to add life to years rather than years to life with a good
quality palliative care. The intention is to provide care when cure is not possible by
low cost methods. The expectation of society is, ‘cure’ from the health
professionals, but the role of medical professionals is to provide ‘care’. Hence,
euthanasia for no cure illness does not have a logical argument. Whenever, there is
no cure, the society and medical professionals become frustrated and the fellow
citizen take extreme measures such as suicide, euthanasia or substance use. In such
situations, palliative and rehabilitative care comes to the rescue of the patient and
the family. At times, doctors do suggest to the family members to have the patient
discharged from the hospital wait for death to come, if the family or patient so
desires. Various reasons are quoted for such decisions, such as poverty, non-
availability of bed, futile intervention, resources can be utilised for other patients
where cure is possible and unfortunately majority of our patient's family do
accordingly. Many of the terminally ill patients prefer to die at home, with or
without any proper terminal health care. The societal perception needs to be altered
and also the medical professionals need to focus on care rather in addition to just
cure. The motive for many euthanasia requests is unawareness of alternatives.
Patients hear from their doctors that ‘nothing can be done anymore’. However,
when patients hear that a lot can be done through palliative care, that the symptoms
can be controlled, now and in the future, many do not want euthanasia anymore16.
Commercialisation of health care: Passive euthanasia occurs in majority of the
hospitals across the county, where poor patients and their family members refuse
or withdraw treatment because of the huge cost involved in keeping them alive. If
euthanasia is legalised, then commercial health sector will serve death sentence to
many disabled and elderly citizens of India for meagre amount of money. This has
been highlighted in the Supreme Court Judgement3,17.
Research has revealed that many terminally ill patients requesting euthanasia, have
major depression, and that the desire for death in terminal patients is correlated
with the depression18. In Indian setting also, strong desire for death was reported by
3 of the 191 advanced cancer patients, and these had severe depression19. They
need palliative and rehabilitative care. They want to be looked after by
enthusiastic, compassionate and humanistic team of health professionals and the
complete expenses need to be borne by the State so that ‘Right to life’ becomes a
reality and succeeds before ‘Right to death with dignity’. Palliative care actually
provides death with dignity and a death considered good by the patient and the care
givers.

Counterargument of euthanasia supporters

Caregivers burden: ‘Right-to-die’ supporters argue that people who have an
incurable, degenerative, disabling or debilitating condition should be allowed to
die in dignity. This argument is further defended for those, who have chronic
debilitating illness even though it is not terminal such as severe mental illness.
Majority of such petitions are filed by the sufferers or family members or their
caretakers. The caregiver's burden is huge and cuts across various domains such as
financial, emotional, time, physical, mental and social. Hence, it is uncommon to
hear requests from the family members of the person with psychiatric illness to
give some poison either to patient or else to them. Coupled with the States
inefficiency, apathy and no investment on health is mockery of the ‘Right to life’.
Refusing care: Right to refuse medical treatment is well recognised in law,
including medical treatment that sustains or prolongs life. For example, a patient
suffering from blood cancer can refuse treatment or deny feeds through nasogastric
tube. Recognition of right to refuse treatment gives a way for passive euthanasia.
Many do argue that allowing medical termination of pregnancy before 16 wk is
also a form of active involuntary euthanasia. This issue of mercy killing of
deformed babies has already been in discussion in Holland20.
Right to die: Many patients in a persistent vegetative state or else in chronic illness,
do not want to be a burden on their family members. Euthanasia can be considered
as a way to upheld the ‘Right to life’ by honouring ‘Right to die’ with dignity.
Encouraging the organ transplantation: Euthanasia in terminally ill patients
provides an opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This in turn will help
many patients with organ failure waiting for transplantation. Not only euthanasia
gives ‘Right to die’ for the terminally ill, but also ‘Right to life’ for the organ
needy patients.
Constitution of India reads ‘right to life’ is in positive direction of protecting life.
Hence, there is an urgent need to fulfil this obligation of ‘Right to life’ by
providing ‘food, safe drinking water and health care’. On the contrary, the state
does not own the responsibility of promoting, protecting and fulfilling the socio-
economic rights such as right to food, right to water, right to education and right to
health care, which are basic essential ingredients of right to life. Till date, most of
the States has not done anything to support the terminally ill people by providing
for hospice care.
If the State takes the responsibility of providing reasonable degree of health care,
then majority of the euthanasia supporters will definitely reconsider their
argument. We do endorse the Supreme Court Judgement that our contemporary
society and public health system is not matured enough to handle this sensitive
issue, hence it needs to be withheld. However, this issue needs to be re-examined
again after few years depending upon the evolution of the society with regard to
providing health care to the disabled and public health sector with regard to
providing health care to poor people.
The Supreme Court judgement to withhold decision on this sensitive issue is a first
step towards a new era of health care in terminally ill patients. The Judgment laid
down is to preserve harmony within a society, when faced with a complex medical,
social and legal dilemma. There is a need to enact a legislation to protect
terminally ill patients and also medical practitioners caring for them as per the
recommendation of Law Commission Report-19615. There is also an urgent need to
invest in our health care system, so that poor people suffering from ill health can
access free health care. Investment in health care is not a charity; ‘Right to Health’
is bestowed under ‘Right to Life’ of our constitution.

Article information
Indian J Med Res. 2012 Dec; 136(6): 899–902.
PMCID: PMC3612319
PMID: 23391785
Suresh Bada Math* and Santosh K. Chaturvedi
Department of Psychiatry National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences (Deemed
University) Bangalore 560 029, India
*
For correspondence:Email: ni.cin.rak.snahmin@mbs, Email: moc.liamg@snahmin
Copyright : © The Indian Journal of Medical Research
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
See commentary "Dried blood spot testing: filling the gap between antiretroviral treatment &
monitoring in India" on page 903.
Articles from The Indian Journal of Medical Research are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer
-- Medknow Publications

References
1. Lewy G. Assisted suicide in US and Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc;
2011. [Google Scholar]
2. Dowbiggin I. A merciful end: The euthanasia movement in modern America. New
York: Oxford University Press, Inc; 2003. [Google Scholar]
3. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) no.
115 of 2009, Decided on 7 March, 2011. [accessed on August 16, 2011]. Available
from: http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wr1152009.pdf .
4. P. Rathinam vs. Union of India, 1994(3) SCC 394 [Google Scholar]
5. Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 1996(2) SCC 648 [Google Scholar]
6. Saunders C. Terminal care in medical oncology. In: Begshawe KD, editor. Medical
oncology. Oxford: Blackwell; 1975. pp. 563–76. [Google Scholar]
7. Caldwell S. Now the Dutch turn against legalised mercy killing. [accessed on August
15, 2011]. Available
from: http://www.hospicevolunteerassociation.org/HVANewsletter/0120_Vol6No1_200
9Dec9_Now The DutchTurn Against Legalised MercyKilling.pdf .
8. Brådvik L, Mattisson C, Bogren M, Nettelbladt P. Long term suicide risk of depression
in the Lundby cohort 1947-1997-severity and gender. Acta Psychiatr
Scand. 2008;117:185–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Campbell C, Fahy T. Suicide and schizophrenia. Psychiatry. 2005;4:65–7. [Google
Scholar]
10. Griffin BA, Harris KM, McCaffrey DF, Morral AR. A prospective investigation of
suicide ideation, attempts, and use of mental health service among adolescents in
substance abuse treatment. Psychol Addict Behav. 2008;22:524–32. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Alonso P. Suicide in patients treated for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A
prospective follow-up study. J Affect Disorders. 2010;124:300–8. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]
12. Bongar BME. Suicide: Guidelines for assessment, management, and treatment. USA:
Oxford University Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]
13. Lonnqvist J. The Oxford textbook of suicidology and suicide prevention. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2009. Major psychiatric disorders in suicide and suicide
attempters; pp. 275–86. [Google Scholar]
14. The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations.
2002. [accessed on August 19, 2011]. Available
from: http://www.mciindia.org/RulesandRegulations/CodeofMedicalEthicsRegulations2
002.aspx . [PubMed]
15. Law Commission report no.196 on medical treatment to terminally ill patients.
[accessed on August 19, 2011]. Available
from: http://lawcommissionofindia.nie.in/reports/rep196.pdf .
16. Zylicz Z, Finlay IG. Euthanasia and palliative care: reflections from The Netherlands
and the UK. J R Soc Med. 1999;92:370–3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Gursahani R. Life and death after Aruna Shanbaug. Indian J Med Ethics. 2011;8:68–
9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Chochinov HM, Wilson KG, Enns M. Desire for death in the terminally ill. Am J
Psychiatry. 1995;152:1185–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Gandhi A, Chaturvedi SK, Chandra P. Desire for death in cancer patients - an Indian
Study. Presented at the International Congress of the International Psycho
OncologySociety, Copenhagen 2004 [Google Scholar]
20. Sheldon T. Dutch legal protection scheme for doctors involved in mercy killing of
babies receives first report. BMJ. 2009:339. [Google Scholar]
Privacy, Dignity and Confidentiality

Policy and Procedure

Issued:3/02/2020

Stage: Issued

Objective:

focus is committed to respecting people's right to be afforded individual privacy, dignity and
confidentiality.

This policy and procedure:

 ensures our practices align with relevant legislation regarding human rights, including the Privacy Act

1988, as well as aligning with the guidelines of the Australian Privacy Principles pertaining to information

management practices.

 outlines the requirement of all focus employees, volunteers, and board members to be consistent and

careful in the way they manage what is written and said about individuals and how they decide who can

see or hear this information.

 identifies the expectation focus has of all staff to maintain the dignity of the people we support at all

times.

This policy is made in accordance with the NDIS Practice Standards Core Module Division 1 - Rights and

Responsibilities, Privacy and Dignity - 'Each participant accesses supports that respect and protect their
dignity

and right to privacy'.

An easy read version of this document is also available to support and enhance understanding - Your
Private

Information

Scope:

All focus staff

Policy Statement:

Privacy and dignity will be understood to include respect for the person's physical body, personal space
and

belongings, living arrangements, and personal information shared with informed consent.

People receiving services from focus are entitled to the same level of privacy as all other members of
society.

Working with vulnerable people should raise staff awareness to the importance of dignity to every
person

supported, and also raise awareness of the importance of sharing information where it is in the best
interests of

the individual, where they have given consent, or in line with the Information Privacy Act 2000.

Confidentiality is the right of a person to have personal information kept private.

focus will prevent unauthorised persons gaining access to an individual's confidential records and permit

individuals access to their own records.

Standard sharing of information regarding people supported takes place between staff, and is usually
done in a

formal manner. Such information disclosed will be relevant to daily activities and support requirements
and

associated health and wellbeing issues. Any information sharing that is outside of what is relevant to the

person's involvement with focus, either directly or indirectly, is not appropriate and may be considered
a breach

of privacy and/or confidentiality

Privacy, Dignity and Confidentiality

Policy and Procedure

All people supported and/or their families/carers will be given the policy on Information Privacy.
Consent needs

to be gained and documented to share any information.

Formal conversations about people must take place in a private setting between the relevant parties,
and never

in a public place.

All employees understand and acknowledge through signing the employment contract that they owe
focus, its
employees, workers and clients, a duty of confidentiality and that they will not, at any time, knowingly
disclose to

any unauthorised personnel confidential information that comes to their knowledge during the course
of their

employment, including documents, materials, processes, and data whether physical, electronic or any
form.

Employees also owe the people they support and other workers a duty of privacy and dignity that they
will, at all

times, maintain.

Violations will result in disciplinary action against the offending individual which may include
termination of

employment.

focus will work in accordance with relevant legislation including the:

 NDIS Act 2013

 Disability Act 2006

 Privacy Act 1988,

 Information Privacy Act 2000,

 Health Records Act 2001,

 Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Process Steps:

What is considered a breach of Privacy and Confidentiality?

Breaches of privacy and confidentiality can be:

 Providing written information not in accordance with guidelines;

 Providing verbal information not in accordance with guidelines;

 Discussing personal information of people supported and/or other staff with or in front of other
people.

A breach of privacy occurs when there is a failure to comply with one or more of the privacy principles
set out in

the Information Privacy Act 2009.

A breach of confidentiality occurs when data or information provided in confidence by a client is

disclosed to a
third party without consent.

Respecting Privacy

focus will ensure the people we support have access to information about their individual rights in
regard to

personal dignity and privacy and will provide support in developing awareness of these rights. An easy
read

booklet "Your Rights" as well as an easy read Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities provides
information

in accessible formats and is provided to all people supported as part of the service agreement process.

Privacy, Dignity and Confidentiality

Policy and Procedure

The people we support are entitled to:

 enjoy a private space

 feel comfortable and reassured that their personal information and belongings will be respected

 communicate confidentially with friends, family and carers when they wish to do so

 be supported in such a way that their personal dignity is maintained

 wherever possible, make choices about those involved in their daily lives.

Respecting Dignity

Dignity is the right of a person to be valued and respected for their own sake, and to be treated
ethically. If

people feel their identity and value as a human being is not respected, this can stop them from enjoying
life and

living comfortably.

Upholding the dignity of individuals means our approach to the way we support someone promotes,
and does

not undermine a person's self-respect regardless of any difference.

Dignity is concerned with how people feel, think and behave in relation to the worth or value of
themselves and

others. Dignified support, or the lack of it, can have a profound effect on people's well-being.
Dignity is the result of being treated with respect. It is internal to each individual, and is often associated
with a

sense of worth, well-being or a sense of purpose. Dignity and respect is important to every one of us - a
key part

of our role is about ensuring the people we support are treated in ways we expect to be treated.

When supporting people dignity is about:

 being polite and respectful

 being thoughtful and caring

 actively engaging people in their daily activities and choices

 keeping people informed

 meeting their individual needs

 ensuring their privacy and modesty

... and not treating people as an object of service

Methods of upholding dignity are usually small seemingly inconsequential things, but they mean a lot.

The following factors promote dignity and should be present when supporting people:

 Choice and control - nothing about the person should be determined without their involvement,

including clothing choices, supports, and daily activities,

 Communication - address the person in a way that reflects their communication and shows respect for

their age and stage of life

 Eating and nutritional care - support the person to express their choices regarding meals. Ensure their

health and nutritional needs are identified and addressed

 Pain management - know how to detect pain and address the issue immediately

 Personal care - approach personal care activities sensitively, ascertain preferences regarding support

 Practical assistance - promote independence every step of the way, and always come from a strengths

based approach

Privacy, Dignity and Confidentiality

Policy and Procedure

 Privacy – uphold a person’s right to privacy. Respect personal space and possessions.

 Social Inclusion – engage with the person, create moments where exchange is possible, commit to

Showing interest in the person and support them to enjoy social activities that reflect their interests.

Staff Responsibility

All staff have a responsibility to:

 Ensure client’s personal information is not left on desks or photocopiers and that records and

Information are securely locked away.

 Ensure client information is stored on focus ‘Supportability’ only, and not on the desktop of individual

Computers.

 Ensure that personal information collected or disclosed is accurate, complete and up-to-date, and

Provide access to any individual and/or their families to review information or correct wrong
information

About themselves

 Only collect the necessary information from people and their families/carers.
 Ensure conversations of a personal nature are conducted away from public areas.

 Do not share client or staff private or confidential information or photographs through external social

Media platforms unless permission has been explicitly given and documented.

 Ensure clients are aware of their rights regarding access to documents and files

 Ensure that people know what sort of personal information is held, what purposes it is held it for and

How it is collected, used, disclosed and who will have access to it

 Consider the implications and risks of forwarding email messages to a third party without consent.

 If sending information of a private nature, notify the recipient that confidential information is about to

Be sent.

 Respect people’s dignity at all times.

All staff are responsible for the management of personal information to which they have access.