The case under consideration exhibits issues of ethical nature. These issues revolve around the choice of disclosing the client’s private information that she shared and clearly noted that she does not give her consent to reveal it to third parties. However, the matter in question concerns an innocent person whose rights are violated as a result of the client’s actions, and the information the worker possesses could help restore those rights.
As for the actions the social worker should undertake to resolve the moral dilemma, it would be beneficial to consult their colleagues first. It is noteworthy, however, that the specific details are not disclosed in the process of such actions as it would be a violation of the code of ethics. As suggested by Frederic Reamer in his book Ethical Standards in Social Work, the fact of the consultation should be mentioned in the protocol to reflect that the matter was rationally considered (Reamer, 1998).
As for the disclosure, the NASW Code of Ethics states that it is possible in the cases when it can be used to prevent “serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client or other identifiable person” (National Association of Social Workers, 1999, p. 7). From this perspective, the worker could prevent accidents that can happen in prison with an innocent woman. The term ‘foreseeable’ could indicate that there is a degree of the assumption that can be made here. According to Dolgoff, Harrington, and Loewenberg (2012), life protection must be the top priority in each decision. Beatings and serious illnesses are not uncommon among prison inmates, so a danger to this person exists. However, there is no evidence that such harm is coming her way. Thus, if there was a case against the worker for violating the code of ethics, the decision could be made not in their favor.
The code also states that a social worker must first obtain official consent to disclose such information (National Association of Social Workers, 1999). Mary Ice did not give her permission to disclose the information by stating that the worker should keep it private. Therefore, the information disclosed without consent will be considered as illegally obtained evidence. Even if the worker approaches the police with such evidence, it cannot be used against Ice in court because of the exclusionary rule. The rule states that facts and data collected in no accordance with the law can be dismissed by the court (Re, 2014).
There are also limitations to the rule that dictates the possibility of the use of such evidence in cases when the probable damage to society is too great. For instance, if a serial killer was on trial and evidence of their guilt was presented, the court could permit to use it against them. Nonetheless, in this case, such danger is absent. The person in question cannot be deemed a serious criminal offender.
All things considered, the disclosure of information without the client’s consent could be possible as there is a chance to prevent harm that may come to the health and life of the innocent woman in prison. However, I would not opt for it, as there is not too much evidence that such consequences are to follow and I could lose my job because of this decision. The second argument against it is that the information that I would have presented to the police illegally with a high degree of certainty would not be used against Mary Ice in court. The exclusionary rule would not allow it. It seems like a noble and honorable thing to try to save the innocent woman in prison, but the chances of success are not high enough.
References
Dolgoff, R., Harrington, D., & Loewenberg, F. M. (2012). Brooks/Cole empowerment series: Ethical decisions for social work practice. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Web.
Re, R. M. (2014). The due process exclusionary rule. Harvard Law Review, 127(7), 1893-1965.
Reamer, F. G. (1998). Ethical standards in social work. Washington, DC: NASW Press.