Hoefer-7-8-25-2

Advocacy Practice for Social Justice 30 {

There are people who tell me that the ends justify the means. This is an tithetical to social work values. . . . For social workers the ends and the means must be consistent. Another way to put it: If the method you use to arrive at your ends are [sic] dirty, then the end result will be dirty. (p. 52) Although social workers are called on to engage in advocacy practice, the code is often silent on the subject of how to do so ethically. In addition, there might be some contradictions inherent in the code. The very first sentence of the detailed ethical standards states plainly, “Social workers’ primary responsibility is to promote the welfare of clients. In general, clients’ interests are primary” (NASW, 2017, Sec. 1.01). This is immediately followed, however, by the statement, “However, social workers’ respon sibility to the larger society or specific legal obligations may on limited occasions supersede the loyalty owed clients” (Sec. 1.01). Reporting child abuse is given as a specific example of when loyalty to the client is over come by legal obligations. The fifth ethical principle described in the code is integrity. Social workers must be “continually aware of the profession’s mission, values, ethical princi ples, and ethical standards” and “practice in a manner consistent with them” (NASW, 2017, Ethical Principles). Specifically, “Social workers act honestly and responsibly and promote ethical practices on the part of the organizations with which they are affiliated” (NASW, Ethical Principles). Honesty is cer tainly an important element in being effective in advocacy efforts, but is hon esty always the best policy? Is it permissible to lie if it better accomplishes social work’s primary mission to “enhance human well-b eing and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty” (NASW, Preamble)? There are no firm answers to these questions. Nonetheless, Reamer (2015) counsels “social workers have a responsibility to think carefully about the moral criteria they use to allocate limited resources.” Jansson (1994) suggests what should be done when ethical principles conflict: When issues reflect important values and consequences, they should not be resolved impulsively. We should feel tugged in different directions, as if each alternative is serious and cannot be lightly dismissed. Were we to hurriedly resolve such issues, we might later decide that we had compromised important values and overlooked important consequences. (p. 59) In the end, “reasonable differences of opinion exist among social workers” (NASW, 2017, Sec. 3.10[b] ). Not every social worker will solve a problem the same way. Nevertheless, “social workers should carefully examine relevant