JCPSLP Vol 17 Supplement 1 2015_lores

Ethics in the workplace

Ethics in clinical decision-making Belinda Kenny

Ethics are an integral factor in effective clinical decision-making. While codes of ethics do not provide a recipe for resolving ethical dilemmas, knowledge and open discussion of bioethical principles may facilitate ethical practice in the speech pathology profession. This paper focuses upon some of the ethical issues that may confront speech pathologists in contemporary health care practice and aims to facilitate discussion of ethical practice in the speech pathology profession. E thics seek to determine how human actions may be judged right or wrong (Garrett, Baillie & Garrett, 2001). Professional ethics encompass diverse aspects of clinical work including intervention planning, management and outcome evaluation. Furthermore, professional ethics are important when defining professional relationships with clients, carers, managers and the community. While ethical decision-making may be focused towards doing the “right thing”, the complexities of clinical practice may present challenges for a speech pathologist. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to determine the “right thing” when there may be differences between clients’ and professionals’ perspectives of good health care outcomes, quality of life and expectations for standards of care. Clinical decision- making may require speech pathologists to examine “grey areas” in client management where there may be multiple “half right” or “not as bad” options. Consider, for example, the issues encountered by a speech pathologist who is managing the swallowing and communication needs of a young adult diagnosed with a progressive neurological disorder in a community setting. What is a “good” versus harmful outcome for this client? Professional associations, including Speech Pathology Australia, have developed codes of ethics to guide members’ decision-making towards “right” or “good” actions and outcomes consistent with professional values. Our Code of Ethics identifies five bioethical principles: beneficence/non-maleficence; truth; fairness (justice); autonomy; and professional integrity (Speech Pathology Australia, 2000). Adhering to ethical principles is the hallmark of professional behaviour. To practice ethically, speech pathologists are urged to seek benefit and avoid harm to others, to tell the truth, deal fairly with others, provide

accurate information, strive for equality in service provision, respect the rights of our clients to self-determination, maintain competence in our practice, and honour professional commitments (Speech Pathology Australia, 2002). The bio­ ethical principles, described in the Code of Ethics, provide an aspirational guide rather than rigid rules of ethical practice. Thus, speech pathologists must interpret and apply these principles in their individual work settings. What is an ethical dilemma? Clinical decision-making often requires a professional to consider more than one ethical principle. An ethical dilemma may arise when there is a conflict among personal and/or professional values, organisational philosophies and expectations for standards of practice. Such conflict poses a problem in making decisions based on standards of fairness, justice and responsibility (Hinderer & Hinderer, 2001). For example, a speech pathologist may be concerned that providing a client with an accurate diagnosis and prognosis may adversely affect a client’s motivation to participate in a rehabilitation program. The ethical principles of truth, autonomy, beneficence/non-maleficence and professional integrity may be at stake in this dilemma between the client’s “right to know” and the professional’s intention to avoid harm by controlling the content or timing of information. This dilemma may be further complicated if carers request that medical information is withheld from a client. Additionally, conflict may occur between principles of autonomy and beneficence when clients or carers refuse intervention or seek support for quality of life decisions with potentially harmful medical consequences. The client’s right to self-determination is at odds with the professional’s desire to benefit the client by providing evidence based practice. Further ethical conflict may stem from caseload management policies. Speech pathologists managing large caseloads and long waiting lists may experience ethical conflict between principles of fairness (providing an equal but limited service to many clients) versus beneficence (providing a quality service to a small group while others remain on the waiting list). The caseload management strategy of withdrawing treatment in response to clients’ poor attendance or compliance with home activities is also ethically fraught. Is it fair that Jack, who has a severe language disorder but inconsistently attends treatment sessions, should receive ongoing intervention when there are many clients on the waiting list who may derive significantly more benefit from the service? Will Jack be

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN PEER- REVIEWED

27

JCPSLP Volume 17, Supplement 1, 2015 – Ethical practice in speech pathology

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au