Ethics

Professional Issues Paper 2 Scenario One requires me to act and I plan to determine exactly what Kimberley expects me to do, buy myself some time and then begin an investigation. I am also determined to encourage Kimberley to access some counselling services. I choose to act in this manner because I am looking at the situation from a combination of deontological and consequentialist theories. Beauchamp and Childress state, “Kant argued that morality is grounded in reason, not in tradition, intuition, conscience, emotion, or attitudes such as sympathy.” (Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J.F., 2001, p348) It is with this in mind that I have decided to use Kant’s theories in part in order to decide how to move ahead within the moral dilemma of scenario one. The scenario is one that could lead to people becoming highly emotional and indeed could have already been affected by intuition. By following a deontological theory I will ensure my emotions do not get in the way of finding the most ethical solution or way forward. Kant argues that intention is imperative if a moral right is to be reached and it is my intention to seek out the truth in order to treat Kimberley “as an end and never as a means only.” (Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J.F., 2001, p350-351) Alexandra & Miller state that “Deontologists hold that at least some actions are right or wrong irrespective of their consequences” (Alexandra, A. & Miller, S., 1996, p26), and while I do agree with this statement to a certain degree, I most certainly will take the short and long term consequences into consideration when weighing up my argument. In this way my decision is based not simply on a deontological theory but is a mixed theorists solution, with consequentialism affecting my choices. Although consequentialism requires ‘the maximum happiness of the greatest number’ it does not mean that Kimberley’s potential sexual abuse being appropriately addressed would not mean the greatest good for the greatest number, despite what might happen to the teachers, the school and the principal. In my view Kimberley’s intrinsic worth far outweighs the need to upkeep the reputation of the school. It is therefore the deontological theory that I err towards. As Strike and Soltis and indeed the Bible describe ‘the Golden Rule, ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you’”. (Strike, K.A & Soltis, J.F., 1992, p15) If this was made universal only good could come of it and indeed Kimberley, Norwood girls school and any of the parties involved would now be in a much better situation. A deontologist maintains ‘our right to others upholding their duty towards us’ (Leaney, G., 2010, EDST4082, Theories of Morality, wk 2, lecture slide 9) as it is our duty to uphold moral obligations. In this scenario, if we assume Kimberley is telling a version of the truth, the teachers and the principal have not upheld their duty towards Kimberley as they have not followed the Duty of Care, this will only compel me all the more strongly to follow this Duty of Care and by following the deontological theory I will avoid emotions playing a part. To follow a deontological path I would ‘do unto others…’ therefore I would have to put Kimberley first as a pupil and a minor and choose truth but not over her loyalty but my loyalty towards the other teachers involved, the principal and the school. The truth must be sought and is universalisable and honesty must be followed. If I am to be honest with Kimberley I would have to tell her I plan to investigate the matter in order to find out the truth and that in the meantime she should get some counselling. I believe in this sense I am being loyal to Kimberley. If she requests that I do nothing then I must still go ahead and investigate as I am bound to seek the truth and tell the truth as a deontologist. However in both cases I am choosing the individual rather than the community as even if Kimberley cannot see it, I am doing what is best for her. If she is lying then she still needs to see a counsellor as she has some serious issues and clearly she requires help or she would not have told me in the first place. Another reason for choosing the individual (Kimberley) over community is the community (school, principal and teachers) have all done Kimberley wrong by not helping her. Even if what Kimberley has told me is not completely true the parties involved should have recognised that Kimberley would need to speak to a mental health professional regardless of what happened overseas. If she is lying then she is psychologically unhealthy and if she is telling the truth then the long term effects of what she has been through will also require her to seek some form of counselling. The consequences of choosing truth over loyalty are far reaching. I could be severely reprimanded for getting involved, I could be hated by Kimberley’s parents if they had not wanted the matter to resurface, the teachers involved could potentially be fired and a law suit could be filed against the school. However these are all short-term consequences and the long-term consequences for Kimberley if she is lying or not, are far more severe. If she was sexually assaulted she could have ongoing psychological problems only made worse by the school’s reaction through her removal from the school and if she is lying then she must have some serious mental problems to have enabled her to create such an elaborate story and cause so much trouble. Had I chosen loyalty rather than truth, Kimberley would continue on as either a troubled liar or an emotionally scarred and wrongly punished individual. The teachers if they were right, still need to explain why they forced her to sign papers, why they didn’t take her to the hospital and why there wasn’t a police report filed. If the teachers were mistaken then they will never learn from their mistake and the same situation or similar could occur again. This is then endangering all future students who may come under the ‘care’ of the teachers involved. From a consequentialist’s angle this is indeed a negative long-term consequence. I would also choose justice over mercy, as in this case justice most certainly should be sought. The safety of a minor was put at risk and in the teaching profession and in everyday life this is unacceptable. By investigating the situation I would also be seeking justice for all. If uncovering the truth means that Kimberley is found to be a liar this in turn could mean she is brought to justice as such. Justice is a universalisability and as such it should be instilled in this situation. The consequences of choosing justice over mercy could mean in the worst case scenario that the teachers lose their job, however they will only do so if they have acted wrongly and therefore should they not move on' It is a serious case and therefore I believe it could be warranted. Again if they were granted mercy, the same thing could happen again but to another student as the teachers will not have learnt how to properly deal with a situation of this nature. As a professional, the nature of a teacher’s relationship with the client (Kimberley) should be one of Paternalism and Trustworthiness, both of which seem to have been ignored by the teachers to date. Through Paternalism the teachers would have been able to provide a parental role that is more distanced and less emotional than that of a mother figure who may have been too protective of Kimberley and quick to take her side and via Trustworthiness Kimberley would have been able to rely on the teachers to act in her best interest. Thus the teachers and the principal seem to have not adhered to the correct nature of relationship with their client for what student could trust that they would act in their best interest if they do not even encourage counselling to a troubled student' This in turn brings us to the obligations teachers must follow; honesty, candour, competence, diligence, loyalty, fairness and discretion. If I am to follow honesty, which I plan to do because of my deontological perspective anyway, I should be honest with Kimberley and yet not necessarily candid. If she asked me to repeat what the teachers had said about her then I doubt I would recite word for word. I would not use candour with Kimberley in this scenario as if she has indeed been assaulted I don’t believe she needs to be upset any further and the long-term consequences of using candour could be detrimental. As far as competence goes this is the main reason I would like to refer Kimberley to a counsellor as I do not feel capable of dealing with her psychological problems. Where diligence is concerned perhaps a lack thereof is why the teachers did not take Kimberley to the hospital or police – if they were feeling burnt out they may have decided not to err on the side of caution if they did not believe Kimberley in the first place. However surely one teacher could have stayed with the rest of the students while the other took Kimberley to the police and hospital thereby at least following protocol in order to be diligent about the matter. An obligation of loyalty could mean that I shouldn’t take things further if Kimberley requests that I don’t however in this case I believe I “can ethically withhold loyalty” and use my “independent professional judgement” (Leaney, G., 2010, EDST4082, Being a Professional Teacher, wk 8, lecture slide 17) as it is in Kimberley’s best interest to do so. An obligation of fairness would mean I must make sure I would follow the same path of action for a student whom I did not know from hockey and whose parents I did not count as acquaintances. As a deontologist who also is mindful of the consequences, I know that my actions would be the same for any student in this situation. In the case of discretion I would certainly not be talking to parties who were not involved in the incident thereby involving people who need not be. Kimberley has been through enough without making matters worse. However the fact that she told me her story at all illustrates her cry for help and certainly does not indicate someone who would like the matter to simply rest. Which brings me to my actions. I have mentioned that I would investigate the matter further, I believe this is imperative no matter what truth comes out – it must come out. The consequences of the truth being revealed are not as severe as if this matter is suppressed further. The board presumably knows nothing of it and yet it is a serious situation that they should be fully across in case Kimberley’s parents file a suit against the school. The long-term consequences for the school are far more negative than the short-term possibility of the situation reaching the papers as the school can show they are now doing the right thing by their student. If the truth is that Kimberley lied all along then at least Kimberley will receive the medical attention she clearly needs and through this Duty of Care will have been adhered to. In fact counselling for Kimberley is an action that I will follow regardless of the truth. If Kimberley will not go then I would approach her parents and delicately raise the subject with them. Without proper counselling Kimberley will face a difficult future and my own conscience could not be clear. The consequences of me not seeking the truth are dire, with two teachers who have failed to follow due diligence, Duty of Care, competence or loyalty, free to continue believing their actions were acceptable and they may then behave this way again in the future with other students. Although a difficult situation, it seems clear that inaction was never a possibility regardless of the theory I decided upon. By talking to Kimberley and finding out what she was hoping I do for her, I can buy myself some time in order to quickly sort through the possibilities of action. As a deontologist the way forward is relatively clear, the truth must be sought, as a consequentialist I have weighed up the short and long-term effects my actions will have and I can be fairly certain that by seeking the truth I am attempting to give the greatest good to the greatest number as Kimberley’s situation is too severe to put the school’s reputation ahead of the safety of a student. Bibliography Alexandra, A. & Miller, S., 1996, Ch. 4, “Moral Principles: Theory”, Ethical Theory and Practice, Wagga Wagga, Keon Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J.F., 2001 5th Edition, Ch. 8, “Moral Theories”, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, New York, Oxford University Press Strike, K.A & Soltis, J.F., 1992, Ch. 1, “What This Book Is About”, The Ethics of Teaching, NSW Department of Education and Training Leaney, G., 2010, Lecture Slides, BB9, EDST4082, Professional Issues in Teaching 1.