Week 6 Debate Outline

1. 1
Week 6 Debate Outline
Noah Johnston
Department of Social Work, UMass Global
SOWK 602: Social Work Law and Ethics
Dr. Yoshioka Mora
February 17, 2023

2. 2
For this week’s debate, we will be evaluating “The Agency” vignette and some of the
ethical dilemmas that we are presented with in this vignette. Overall, this agency is not engaging
in ethical practices because they are addressing the language barrier in an ineffective way and are
using inappropriate translation of agency forms. This interferes with the client’s ability to
understand informed consent and services. To further analyze this dilemma, we will be using
Elaine Congress’s ETHIC model of decision-making. Congress’s model includes evaluating
relevant personal, societal, agency, client and professional values; thinking about what ethical
standard of the NASW Code of Ethics applies as well as relevant laws and case decisions;
hypothesizing about possible consequences of different decisions; identifying who will benefit
and who will be harmed in view of social work’s commitment to those that are vulnerable; and
consulting with supervisor and colleagues about the most ethical choice (Congress, 2000).
First, I must evaluate relevant personal, societal, agency, client, and professional values
(Congress, 2000). Overall, the primary dilemma is that the agency is not using valid translation
services to provide services both in verbal and written format. From a personal perspective, I
value client’s ability to understand services and know what they are getting into. Providing
inaccurate and mistranslated information can lead to misinterpreted roles, engagement, and
responsibilities. From a societal perspective, our society values fairness and equality. Providing
inaccurate informed consent information can lead to discrepancies in services and mislead
expectations of the client. Agency values should also mirror client and professional values. From
our client’s perspectives, they have the right to properly understand what type of services and
outcomes they will engage in. Having mistranslated agency information inhibits the client’s
ability to provide informed consent. As a profession, social workers value reducing barriers to
services and the implementation of services. Unfortunately, the inability to provide accurate

3. 3
informed consent increases barriers to services and inhibits the client’s ability to fully understand
services.
Next, Congress suggests we think about what ethical standards of the NASW Code of
Ethics applies as well as relevant laws and case decisions (2000). First, the NASW’s Standard
1.03 Informed Consent(a) states, “Social workers should provide services to clients only in the
context of a professional relationship based, when appropriate, on valid informed consent. Social
workers should use clear and understandable language to inform clients of the purpose of the
services, risks related to the services…” (National Association of Social Workers, 2021). This
standard clearly states that social workers should provide valid informed consent in clear and
understandable language. Using translation software to communicate in session and using
Google translate to verbally inform clients of their consent is inappropriate, invalid, and does not
align with the NASW standard. Next, the NASW’s Standard 1.03(b) states, “In instances when
clients are not literate or have difficulty understanding the primary language used in the practice
setting, social workers should take steps to ensure clients’ comprehension. This may include
providing clients with a detailed verbal explanation or arranging for a qualified interpreter or
translator whenever possible” (NASW, 2021). Using Google translate to translate informed
consent information is not considered a qualified interpreter or translator, thus, this agency is not
engaging in ethical practices.
Third, Congress suggests we hypothesize about possible consequences of different
decisions (2000). Not using qualified or adequate enough translation services presents several
consequences for both the agency and clients. For clients, the consequences are not fully
understanding services, informed consent, and treatment outcomes. In addition, a client is less
likely to engage, feel comfortable, and open up if the translation services are inadequate and

4. 4
don’t bridge the gap between staff and clients. Consequences for the staff are having to deal with
the repercussions of not providing information in the client’s primary language, which could
include confusion and misinterpretation of roles. Last, this agency’s staff may be at risk of
litigation because they didn’t follow the NASW’s standard on informed consent.
Fourth, Congress points us to identify who will benefit and who will be harmed in view
of social work’s commitment to the most vulnerable (2000). Overall, every client that is
presented information not in their primary language is at risk of being harmed because this
unethical practice prevents them from being able to communicate effectively, understand
services, and provide informed consent. No one benefits from this scenario as the agency is at
risk for having client’s that don’t fully understand services, treatment objectives, and the agency
might have to duplicate services in the future to provide all treatment information in the client’s
primary language using a more valid translator.
Last, Congress suggests we consult with supervisors and colleagues about the most
ethical choice (2000). For this final step, I would speak with my agency supervisor, fellow
colleagues, and other professionals in the field to elicit perspectives on if this agency is engaging
in ethical practices. It is important to value, remain open-minded, and truly listen to everyone’s
feedback in order to determine the most ethical decision moving forward. After consulting with
my agency supervisor and colleagues, they too agreed that this agency is engaging in unethical
practices by not providing information on services and informed consent in the client’s primary
language and for using invalid translation services.

5. 5
References
Congress, E. P. (2000). What Social Workers should know about ethics: Understanding and
resolving ethical dilemmas. Advances in Social Work, 1(1), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.18060/124
National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics of the National Association of
Social Workers. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-
Ethics-English