This course is Master of Advanced social work practice so the answers should be
based on that context as a social worker
Answer each of the following 4 questions. Each answer should take about 400 words.
Explain and defend your answers as fully as you can.
- “In 1997, a Scottish surgeon by the name of Robert Smith was approached by a man
with an unusual request: he wanted his apparently healthy lower left leg amputated.
Although details about the case are sketchy, the would-be amputee appears to have
desired the amputation on the grounds that his left foot wasn’t part of him — it felt
alien. After consultation with psychiatrists, Smith performed the amputation.” (Bayne
and Levy 2005) Did Smith act wrongly? Consider whether there are limits to our
obligation to respect others’ autonomy.
- Is it ever morally permissible to be a ‘bad Samaritan’?
- ‘Whether our actions cause harm to others is sometimes beyond our control. In these
cases, whether one is blameworthy is similarly a matter of luck: whether one is
blameworthy for one’s behaviour depends on factors beyond our control.’
Discuss, illustrating your discussion with a case study Consider as follows:
(a) Whether it is fair to hold people responsible in cases like these and
(b) How professionals ought to make decisions in these cases.
- Describe a scenario where someone might be tempted to ‘blow the whistle’ in a
professional context. Outline an argument both for and against whistleblowing in your
This assessment task will assess the following learning outcome/s:
Be able to develop and apply an ethical approach to professional practice.
Be able to analyse whether paternalistic intervention in the lives of vulnerable
adults and children is ever morally permissible, and whether in terms of duty of
care there is ever a professional responsibility to intervene.
Be able to evaluate when an individual’s right to self-determination entails that
they must be left alone, and how human rights, more generally, govern the duty
to intervene and the duty to respect others’ autonomy.
Be able to consider when it is necessary to respect the ‘dignity of risk’ of
vulnerable parties (i.e. their right to take reasonable risks), while considering the
impact on families and the wider community in allowing risky choices.
Be able to identify and evaluate ways of protecting the dignity of a vulnerable
party in the course of paternalistic intervention, by harnessing the party’s own
agency as far as possible, and minimising distress.
Be able to consider legal requirements that determine whether someone is
capable of giving consent, and when intervention is permissible in cases where
it is not possible to obtain consent.
Be able to critically evaluate opposing viewpoints, and engage in productive
debates, concerning law and policy regarding paternalistic intervention.
No of pages: 5
No of references: 16
The sources should be within the period (2017-2022)
Websites are not accepted at all
Sources should be from well-recognized peer reviewed ones
Referencing: You must use APA style for all referencing. For details, see:
In-text quotations references are not accepted
All papers are written by ENL (US, UK, AUSTRALIA) writers with vast experience in the field. We perform a quality assessment on all orders before submitting them.
We provide plagiarism reports for all our custom written papers. All papers are written from scratch.
Contact us anytime, any day, via any means if you need any help. You can use the Live Chat, email, or our provided phone number anytime.
Get your money back if your paper is not delivered on time or if your instructions are not followed.