Ethical Principles of Social Work

Ethical principles of social work Ethics is not just a distinct part of social work as a profession (for example, an ethical code), nor is it a field of study (as one of its subjects), nor a scientific discipline (as ethical rules of research activity). It is an inseparable, integral part of it. Without it, social work could not be social work in any of its forms of existence. In higher education for social workers, as well as in the practice of the profession itself, ethics is decisive: theoretical knowledge and practical skills must be integrated into the moral thinking and conduct of the social worker and should encompass the whole field of work as well as relationships in the provision of social work services.

The article discusses mainly ethical principles of the profession. Many of them may be considered theoretical principles by other authors (e.g. holistic approach, empowerment), while some are legal prerequisites of the professional practice (e.g. respect for human rights, protection of privacy and personal data). This again shows the very close connection between the theoretical and ethical aspects of this discipline.

We understand ethical principles as “fundamental standards of conduct on which many other standards and judgments depend. A principle is an indispensable norm in a value system that creates the basis for moral reasoning within that system” (Beauchamp 1996, pp. 80–81). Because they are related to values, Aadland (2011, p. 18) notes that no principle can be formulated as superior to values—values themselves are the basis of all other principles.

The formulation of an ethical code is today considered a basic requirement of professionalism and is one of the characteristics of helping professions. Knowing that a code of ethics by itself cannot guarantee ethical behavior, which ultimately stems from the individual responsibility of social workers, its formulation is nonetheless highly significant for the social work profession, for professionals working in it, and for users of social services. Ethical standards in social work are gradually developing, transforming, and deepening as a result of changes in society, community life, the development of social services, and social work as a profession (Mátel in Tvrdoň et al., 2014).

At present, the current international code of ethics in social work is the common IFSW/IASSW document Ethics in Social Work: Statement of Principles adopted in 2004. In Slovakia, a new Ethical Code for Social Workers and Social Work Assistants has been valid since 1 October 2015. It states that “ethical awareness is a fundamental part of professional social work activity. A social worker’s and social work assistant’s capacity and commitment to ethical action is a core aspect of the quality of social work services.” It also states that “social work is a dynamically developing profession grounded in values such as social justice, human dignity, and the importance of interpersonal relationships.” Among the principles that make social work ethically sensitive we can include:

• promoting social justice,
• respect for human dignity,
• respecting human rights,
• the primacy of the client’s interests,
• striving for the client’s best interest,
• respect for professional boundaries,
• equal treatment,
• anti-discrimination,
• respect for diversity,
• self-determination of service users,
• participation,
• strengthening and empowering service users,
• individual approach to the client,
• respect for client privacy,
• respect for information confidentiality,
• holistic approach.

Principle of promoting social justice
This key principle of contemporary social work belongs not only to ethics; it also permeates the discipline as a whole. On the global level, the principle of social justice has been recognized as essential in the two most recent definitions of social work (IFSW/IASSW, 2000; 2014) as well as in the international ethical code (IFSW/IASSW, 2004).

The Ethical Code of the Social Worker and Social Work Assistant (2015) identifies social justice as a key value, as do other national ethical codes (e.g. American, British, Canadian, etc.). It states: The social worker and social work assistant is responsible for promoting social justice in relation to all of society as well as to people who use social work services.
They strive to ensure that all people have access to the necessary information, services, and resources, equal opportunities, and participation in decision-making processes. They create conditions enabling users of social work services to achieve what they are entitled to.
The social worker and social work assistant contributes to the removal of manifestations and causes of social injustice, discrimination, oppression, and barriers that support social exclusion. They engage in achieving social change, social development, and social inclusion, especially in the interest of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups.

In a broader sense, social justice can mean any distributive model covering all relevant social relations (including status rights, recognition of minority identities, environmental protection, etc.), but in a narrower sense it is usually understood as literal “economic justice,” mainly concerning the fair distribution of scarce material resources. Blaha (In Mátel et al., 2012) distinguishes, when explaining social justice, between “desert-based justice” and “needs-based justice.” In the desert concept, an individual’s valuation should be proportionate to effort expended: “to each, what they deserve.” The individual is rewarded on the basis of their own qualities or merits, regardless of others or society as a whole. In this framework, quality of performance is essential because those more capable, according to performance justice, should be justly rewarded “in proportion to merit.” By this concept, each person should receive as much as they “deserve,” thus naturally more to those who are more capable. Its assumptions include these basic requirements: first, it is fair for a person to gain what they have obtained in line with applicable law and market mechanisms; second, it is fair to reap the fruits of one’s work; third, justice should reflect moral desert.
On the other hand, the needs-based concept emphasizes that less capable individuals must also be considered (regardless of criteria such as quality, ability, or market logic) and that no one should therefore be treated in a way that strips them of dignity or even the possibility of survival. This intuition primarily arises from an understanding of justice as equal access and becomes salient especially in desperate situations, when people witness the suffering of the poor and hungry. Put simply: if one person “justly” gets billions while another “justly” dies of hunger, that is not justice. In such cases, desert-based justice is not enough; instead, a results-oriented principle of social justice based on need becomes relevant. The key to fair distribution of material resources is then not desert or performance, but need or solidarity. The aim of this conception of justice is to equalize social conditions for all individuals, or at least to secure a dignified minimum for the survival of every human being. Needs-based justice logically requires a redistributive (redistribution) policy based on individuals’ needs. At the core of this concept is solidarity (in the sense of non-reciprocal transfer), meaning transfers from the stronger to the weaker—e.g. from the wealthy to the poor, from the healthy to the sick, from people in working age to retirees, and so on. Its essence is the fulfillment of basic human needs regardless of whether a person deserves them.
Overall, one can conclude with the relationship between both social justice concepts in Nicholas Barr’s formulation (1998, In Mátel et al., 2012): the desert dimension implies that one who works more hours deserves greater reward, while the needs dimension implies that it should not happen that a person unable to work is left to starve.

The link between social justice and human rights is very close. According to Blaha (In Mátel et al., 2012, p. 63), “in the essence of the concept social justice one can analytically trace the concept of human rights, since the basic precondition of just distribution becomes the requirement that every human being must have secure material conditions for a dignified life. Such a requirement is most convincingly defendable when one proceeds from the assumption that every person has certain human rights, including the right to dignified material conditions and social security.”

Respect for human rights and human dignity of every person, without distinction, is among the fundamental requirements of social work. Almost all social work ethical codes, including the IFSW/IASSW international code (2004), explicitly reflect this fact. So do both global definitions of social work (IFSW/IASSW, 2000; 2014). The new Slovak ethical code (2015) has also joined this trend. It identified human dignity as one of the key values of the profession and states: Social work is based on respect for the dignity of all people without distinction and on respect for human rights as set out in international documents.

At the center of a social worker’s attention should be the individual with their inherent, inalienable, and imprescriptible rights, which belong to every person from birth to death. A person has certain basic human rights, and these cannot be violated in the name of any greater good. In other words, one cannot sacrifice one person for another person or for society as a whole (Blaha In Mátel et al., 2012). Every person, regardless of physical, psychological, or social condition, possesses inalienable dignity that grounds their incomparable value (Mátel, 2012, p. 140). Because social work is grounded in respect for the value and dignity of all people and in the rights deriving from that, social workers should promote and protect the physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual integrity and wellbeing of each person (IFSW, 2004, 4.1). The value of the individual is above everything else. The person is placed above institutional interests or any material values (Havránková, In Matoušek, 2008, p. 68). It is not the social worker’s task to judge the moral level of the client (the social worker is neither priest nor preacher). Social workers should not professionally blame a client and say that “they are to blame themselves,” but rather accept them. Acceptance is the social worker’s capacity to maintain respect for the client, even when the client displays risky behavior. It is based on unconditional respect for a person as a person.

Human rights can be understood only if applied universally, that is, to every person. If we speak of some right that one person has and another does not, then we are no longer speaking of a right but of a “privilege” of some people. To the concept of “right” logically belongs “equality” of all persons, and thus the abolition of privileges (Blaha In Mátel et al., 2012, p. 79).
A social worker should know major international documents on human rights so that their principles can be applied in everyday work with clients. These are documents from several international institutions:

United Nations (UN) – these are mainly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966); the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979); the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989); the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (2004); and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).

Council of Europe (CoE) – for social rights, special attention should be focused primarily on the European Social Charter, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1961 (revised in 1996). The Charter covers housing (e.g. the right to adequate and affordable housing; efforts to reduce homelessness), health (e.g. accessible health care, protection of motherhood, and a healthy environment), education (e.g. free primary and secondary education), employment (e.g. fair working conditions, ban on child labour, right to strike), legal and social protection (e.g. right to social security, social aid, and social services, right to protection from poverty and social exclusion, legal protection of the family), freedom of movement (e.g. right to family unity), and non-discrimination (e.g. equal treatment of men and women). Whether the obligations in the Charter are upheld is monitored by the European Committee of Social Rights.

European Union (EU) – in 1989 the Union adopted the so-called Social Charter of the European Union (officially the Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers), which imposed specific obligations on member states in the area of social rights protection within the common European market (e.g. right to fair pay, social protection, workers’ participation rights, health and safety at work, equal treatment of men and women, and others). The EU Social Charter became part of the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty), which came into force in 1993. Even more significant in the EU context is the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the European Union, which includes civil, political, and social rights as a whole. Through the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter became legally binding for all 28 EU member states. This also applies to chapters specifically addressing social rights, for example the third and fourth chapters on equality and solidarity (right to social protection and social assistance, right to health care, right to fair working conditions, etc.).

The first and most significant human-rights document of the twentieth century is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Its 30 articles are usually grouped into three broad generations of human rights. The first generation includes civil rights (right to life, inviolability of person and privacy, personal liberty, protection of personal honor, property, fair process, freedom of thought, religious belief, freedom of movement and residence, etc.) and political rights (freedom of expression, right to information, right to petition, assembly, association, voting rights, right to resistance). The second generation contains economic rights (right to work, to freely choose a trade, right to strike, special labour conditions and increased workplace protection for women, minors, and persons with disabilities, etc.), social rights (right to health care, right to pension security, right to family protection, etc.), and cultural rights (right to education, freedom of scientific research, etc.). The broader social-rights field of the second generation is best captured by Articles 22 to 26: Article 22: Everyone as a member of society has the right to social security and to an economic, social and cultural life necessary for the free development of his personality, in accordance with the resources available in his country, to the end that he may enjoy freedom to realize his personality and maintain his dignity.
Article 23: (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for him and his family a standard of life adequate for health and well-being, supplemented, if necessary, by other social security measures. (4) Everyone has the right to form trade unions and to join them for the protection of his interests.
Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic paid holidays.
Article 25: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services; and to security in the event of unemployment, illness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, have the same social protection.
Article 26: (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally accessible, and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of ability. (2) Education shall aim at the full development of the human personality and the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall foster understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and racial or religious groups and contribute to UN efforts for peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education for their children.

Finally, in the third generation of the Declaration one finds so-called solidarity rights, or postmodern rights, such as the right to peace, right to a favorable environment, rights of national and ethnic minorities, right to access cultural heritage, and so on (Blaha In Mátel et al., 2012, pp. 79–80).

Given respect for rights, it is important to understand that some people should not be understood only as legal objects and objects of our care, but as subjects of law—active and equal participants in decisions that concern them. Guráň (2015) emphasizes this especially in relation to children. “On the basis of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the child is a rights holder. Recognizing this historically new status of the child is a problem not only in highly traditional developing countries but also in many democratic countries worldwide, including Slovakia. Closely connected to this is the misconception that children’s rights are something adults or society may grant as they see fit. Understanding children’s rights as a reward or a ‘gift’ is inherently wrong. Conversely, each country that has ratified the Convention is obliged to provide all rights listed in it, and its basic obligation is to guarantee those rights and their implementation through government, administrative, and institutional structures.”

Bicková and Hrdinová note that some groups of people (e.g. persons with mental or physical disabilities, seniors, etc.) naturally have these rights but are not able to realize them independently and do so only with the help of others (In Bicková et al., 2011, p. 48). The task of social workers in work with such target groups is to help them realize their inalienable human rights while preserving the principle that they are always considered rights holders.

Principles of primacy and best interest of the client

Social workers have primary responsibility for people using their services. This means that, from a professional perspective, the client’s interests are paramount, not the client’s own interests or those of the organization in which the social worker is employed. Emphasizing this prioritization is not self-serving, as we can encounter in practice cases where this principle is violated. The international ethical code therefore states that “social workers do not subordinate the needs and interests of the people they serve to their own needs and interests” (IFSW/IASSW 2004, para. 5.5). In line with this, the Slovak ethical code (2015) states: The social worker and social work assistant has primary responsibility toward persons using social work services. They do not harm clients nor subordinate clients’ needs and interests to their own. They work with clients with integrity, participation, and respect, and create a trust-based relationship. In communication with clients or about them, they do not use demeaning or pejorative language.

The principle of non-maleficence (from Latin maleficium: harm, injustice, wrong, crime) is common in codes of ethics for physicians and other health professionals. It has also been increasingly included in ethical codes of other professions. The Slovak ethical code applies it also to communication, where social workers should respond professionally, not emotionally, and in no case in a demeaning or pejorative way.

A social worker’s own interests that could harm or potentially harm users of services are generally considered inappropriate. This includes a broad area of so-called dual and multiple relationships, which we consider below under the principle of respecting the boundaries of the professional relationship. On the other hand, there are also legitimate claims that a social worker is entitled to. Those were discussed in the chapter on responsibility of the social worker toward oneself. Here we only recall the Slovak ethical code (2015) provision that one must consider “one’s own resources and limits so that one’s own health is not endangered.”

The principle of the best interests of the child is one of the central concepts of the international Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). It guarantees that in decisions concerning a child, or decisions that affect the child, the child’s interest is the most important, not adults’ interests. Such situations are very common, for example in divorces, placement decisions, school choice, and so on. The principle of the child’s best interests is understood not as a final decision but as a decision-making process, where different perspectives and options are considered and the child’s own view is required. In assessing best interests it is assumed that each case must be evaluated individually and general criteria cannot be applied universally (Guráň et al., 2015).

Alongside this concept, the phrase “best interest of the user of social services” is often used and appears already in the Slovak ethical code. It would apply to a broader range of clients than children and is conceptually richer than the principle prioritizing clients’ interests over workers’ and organizations’ interests. Historically, it may correspond to the principle of benevolence (beneficia from Latin bene—good, beneficium—favor, kindness). As with finding the best interest of the child, it is a process of decision-making where different perspectives and possibilities are considered and where the client’s own view and decision cannot be missing (see participation and self-determination below). Social work services according to this principle should always be comprehensive, and clients should be sufficiently informed about everything that concerns them. The Slovak ethical code (2015) states important rules in this context: The social worker and social work assistant informs users of services about the process, scope, options, and consequences of professional help, as well as likely undesirable risks. The social worker and social work assistant is aware of their professional and professional limitations and the boundaries of their competence. They inform the client about the possibility of using all social work services and other forms of help, not only in the institution where they practice social work. They are obliged to ensure continuity of services and support for a client when these remain necessary, even if they themselves legitimately stop providing them. If they are unable to provide adequate social work services to a client, they refer the client to a colleague, another helping worker, or another institution.

In practice, social workers may meet many situations where they face a conflict between the interests of several clients using services in one organization. Decision-making in such situations is complex and can create dilemmas of various kinds. Although the social worker may seek the client’s best interests, the question remains whose best interest in particular? Professional workers should show particular care for all persons who cannot adequately represent, defend, or express themselves (especially children, persons with severe disabilities, some seniors, and others).

A professional degree of restraint, responsibility, and propriety must also be maintained when a client provides information about another person (e.g. their former spouse, parent-in-law). These can often be emotionally charged exaggerations that that person may perceive as “true,” but which cannot serve as the basis for objective assessment of a third person by the social worker. This is especially acute in court proceedings in child protection social services (Mátel et al., 2012, p. 139). Novák (2006, p. 26), from experience in marriage counseling, notes: “Even if a mother portrayed contact between the child and father after divorce in the worst possible terms and the child, in tears, said the father does not want to see them, a (child protection) worker cannot write a report concluding: ‘I do not recommend visitation with the father’ until they have met the father and investigated the matter thoroughly.” In such cases, the principle of the best interest of the child must be applied, not the best interests of one or the other parent.

In some cases social workers need to protect a client from themselves and from their self-harming behaviors. This is especially relevant in work with suicidal clients and persons with various mental disorders.

Principle of respecting professional boundaries

Human relationship is a key component of social work. A professional relationship must also have clear boundaries, especially during the professional contract and, in some cases, also after its completion. Clearly defined boundaries in helping professions protect not only clients but also workers themselves.

Boundaries should not be ambiguous. In English-language literature this is discussed in terms of dual or multiple relationships. These are additional relationships that exist alongside the primary professional relationship, such as family, romantic, sexual, financial, or business relationships. These relationships can blur the boundaries between professionals and clients, influence professional assessments, potentially create conflicts of interest, or lead to client exploitation (Mátel et al., 2012, p. 159). Barker (2003, p. 131) describes such ethically problematic practice as role-taking of a second role toward clients, which tends to shift into exploitation or has at least long-term negative consequences for them. Reamer (2006, p. 109) likewise notes that relationships between social workers and clients based on unclear and opaque dual or multiple relations can be destructive. He distinguishes five conceptual categories in which these may fall: 1. intimate relationships; 2. seeking personal gain; 3. when professionals seek answers to their own emotional needs or dependencies (e.g. when they themselves feel lonely or socially isolated); 4. altruistic gestures (e.g. giving a private phone number, gifts to clients, writing affectionate messages); 5. reactions to unforeseen circumstances.

Some ethical codes state the need for professional boundaries between personal and professional life generally (e.g. IFSW, 2004, 5.3). Many codes explicitly state boundaries in the sexual domain, such as the American code (NASW, 2008). The new Slovak code states: The social worker and social work assistant respects the boundaries between personal and professional life. Their workplace position toward the client may not in any case be misused for personal gain, including unauthorized sexual, political, social, or economic advantage. They do not enter into partner or sexual relationships with service users or their close family members. They do not misuse their position for personal enrichment or to favor relatives and acquaintances.

Reamer (1998, p. 83) states that any form of sexual activity or contact with clients is generally considered self-serving and exploitative, regardless of the social worker’s motive. This also applies when the client demands or seeks a sexual relationship. When clients are involved in sexual activity with their social workers, they are often confused about the nature and intention of such a relationship, and it usually has harmful effects on them. As for the issue of sexual abuse and sexual violence, this is not only an ethical violation but also criminal conduct involving violence. Under Slovak criminal law, sexual abuse is defined as sexual intercourse or other sexual exploitation with a person under fifteen years of age (see § 201 of Act No. 300/2005 Coll.). The legal elements of sexual violence are met by someone who, by force or threat of immediate force, compels another to oral sex, anal sex, or other sexual acts, or who exploits a person’s defenselessness to do so (§ 200). Cases of sexual exploitation of clients by social workers strongly and negatively influence public opinion about the profession and reduce public trust. Therefore ethical codes rightly state that social workers must not sexually exploit any person.

A specific issue is maintaining professional boundaries regarding physical contact. Social workers must carefully distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate physical contact with clients. Appropriate physical contacts should have clearly defined culturally sensitive boundaries. Social workers should remain sensitive throughout the professional relationship to how clients or others may interpret physical contact (see Mátel et al., 2012).

Principles of equal treatment, anti-discrimination, and respect for diversity

Given respect for dignity and human rights of clients, it is crucial to emphasize that these are rights of every person regardless of difference. Therefore, the requirement of equal treatment and anti-discrimination is an integral part of almost all social work ethical codes. The Slovak ethical code (2015) states that the social worker and social work assistant strive to ensure equal opportunities, contribute to the removal of discrimination and oppression, and at their workplace they are responsible for preventing and eliminating all forms of discrimination and violence. In a dedicated article it also states: Social work services are provided to every applicant regardless of origin, skin color, race, ethnic origin, nationality, language, age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, health status, religion, political conviction, marital and family status, socio-economic status, and regardless of one’s contribution to all of society.

In the sociological dictionary of French authors, discrimination is simply defined as unfair treatment of people on grounds without rational basis (In Boudon, 2004, p. 37). The process aimed at total elimination of discriminatory judgment and treatment is called anti-discrimination. In Slovakia, the central legislative framework for anti-discrimination protection is the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and the Anti-Discrimination Act No. 365/2004 Coll., as later amended. The requirement of equal treatment is gradually being integrated into all areas of professional activity. Notably, both the IFSW/IASSW international ethical code (2004) and the Slovak ethical code include anti-discrimination as part of social justice, reflecting the need to address all forms of discrimination not only at the individual level but also at the societal level. The aim is for anti-discrimination to become part of life in all of society.

The principle of non-discrimination is one of the core provisions of child rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). According to Guráň (2015), the Convention goes beyond anti-discrimination statutes because it “prohibits discrimination not only on the basis of a person’s individual characteristics but guarantees non-discrimination for a child also in relation to the position and characteristics of their parents or family members. For example, a child should not bear consequences if the father is under criminal investigation, the mother belongs to a prohibited sect, etc. This is a crucial provision, especially in cases of child migration and unaccompanied children.”

Removing discrimination from society also means removing prejudices (Latin prejudicium), about which someone aptly said it is “easier to break an atom than a prejudice.” According to Allport (2004), a prejudice is thinking negatively about “others” without adequate justification. These “others” may be, for example, Jews, Roma, migrants, persons with mental disorders, and others. Ethnic prejudice is an aversion arising from erroneous and rigid generalization. Such aversion can be felt or expressed. It may be directed against a group as a whole, or against an individual because they belong to that group (Allport, 2004, p. 41).

In most cases it is obvious that a person relies on a selective choice of a few own memories and second-hand information, mixes this with rumors, and overgeneralizes. Almost no one can know all Jews, all Roma, all migrants, all persons with cognitive impairments, and so on. A negative attitude toward these groups as a whole is an example of negative thinking without adequate basis. Prejudice usually appears in how we interact with members of the rejected group. It may show itself as stigmatization, avoidance, discrimination, physical attack, even elimination of entire groups, as we have seen in 20th-century history. Among modern powerful means of spreading prejudice are mass media. Reducing prejudice may include intercultural education, learning about different cultures, seeking personal contact with them, promoting tolerance, and practical respect for diversity. “Research shows that people who become aware of their prejudices and feel ashamed of them are on the right path to letting them go” (Allport, 2004, p. 519).

In line with the application of the principle of respecting diversity, the Slovak code also includes: The social worker and social work assistant respects affiliation with social groups and the national, religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity of individuals, groups, and communities.

Principle of self-determination of service users

The right to self-determination (right to self-determination) recognizes the needs of social service users to make their own decisions and choices freely (cf. Barker, 2003, p. 387). Banksová (2006, p. 48) distinguishes negative and positive meanings of self-determination. In the negative sense it means enabling someone to act according to their own choice. In the positive sense it means creating conditions that allow the person to become more self-determining, which means helping them achieve a state in which they can perceive available options. The principle of self-determination also means that it is up to the client whether they will engage in the social work process or not. The social worker manages the intervention, not the client (Havránková, In Matoušek 2008). Hartl (In Matoušek et al., 2008, p. 86), in the context of counseling, states that the person with problems is simultaneously the person who has the resources needed to solve them. Therefore, the counselor creates a relationship that allows the client to search for and find their own answers.

Part of the right to self-determination is also autonomy, understood as the capacity to meet one’s own needs and act independently without being controlled by others (Barker, 2003, p. 34). Matulayová (In Aadland, Matulayová, 2011, p. 67) defines autonomy as “the relative independence of an individual in relation to the social environment, as the ability and possibility to lead life according to one’s own rules and independently determine goals and, in general, to make decisions, exercise freedom of choice.” According to Novotná and Lašek (2010, p. 427), autonomy can be characterized by independence and self-sufficiency in views, emotions, values, and activities. These authors indicate two components of autonomy. One is independence from others, which should be expressed by self-reliance, self-confidence, awareness of personal competence, one’s own qualities and abilities, will, self-assertion, or activity. The second component is social resistance: resilience to social pressure, and in some cases ability to assert oneself, to direct one’s actions and events around oneself (here it overlaps with self-determination), and the ability not to submit to surrounding pressures (non-conformity).

According to the new Slovak ethical code, participation in decision-making also belongs to self-determination. The right to self-determination also includes the right to suspend or terminate social services by the client, which is stated in the new code: The social worker and social work assistant accepts and supports termination of service provision by clients when they can help themselves, social work services are no longer needed, or services no longer serve their best interests. In such cases, preventive support may be provided through follow-up support.

Social workers and social workers’ assistants have the role not only of encouraging clients to become aware of their own responsibility and own decisions, but also of supporting the practical realization of those decisions. The right to self-determination includes the client’s right to suspend or end social services. Especially for involuntary clients, social workers should provide information about the restrictions resulting from ending services, as well as alternative options for receiving other forms of help.

Key instruments for promoting self-determination include targeted and active strengthening and empowerment of clients, informed consent, increased client participation in solving their own social problems, and individualized social work, especially in residential social service facilities (Mátel, 2012, p. 147).

With regard to social services, respect for autonomy means that the client should have power and control over their own life and be able to make decisions to the extent allowed by their physical and psychological determinants (age, health, disability, etc.). A very important task of social workers with clients with specific needs (persons with mental, physical, or multiple impairments) is to assess the degree of autonomy and independence these clients can achieve in life. Dubayová and Hrebeňárová (In Aadland, 2011, p. 81) correctly state that among persons with mental impairments, opportunities for autonomy education are constrained by the impairment, yet a certain degree of autonomy is possible for them as well. From a process perspective, even assessment should be conducted exclusively together with the client. In facilities for older people or social service homes, users should therefore have not only an adequate amount of appropriate daily activities but also the ability to choose or refuse them. If they require more time for certain self-care tasks, enough time should be provided. Similarly, Bicková (2011, p. 48), in the context of social services, notes that even a person deprived of legal capacity may still make certain independent decisions without a guardian according to their will (e.g. what to eat, when to sleep, what to wear, how to spend free time). To provide services in adequate quality according to an individual development plan, it is fundamental to know the user’s will.

Principle of participation

In close relation to the right to self-determination is the right to participation. The IFSW/IASSW international ethical code (2004, 4.1.2) states: “Social workers should promote full involvement and participation of people who use their services in a way that enables them to become empowered in all aspects of decision-making and action affecting their lives.” The new Slovak ethical code states similarly: The social worker and social work assistant strives to enhance client competencies, supports the client’s own responsibility and autonomy, right to self-determination, and participation.

Řezníček (1994, p. 47) emphasized that the key to successful intervention is client motivation to cooperate. Strieženec (1996, p. 146) aptly stated that user participation in their own social security during adverse life situations requires adequate information about possible forms of such security, knowledge of duties, legal procedures, and institutions where help may be sought. This is precisely the role of social workers. They should never solve users’ problems for them. Mátel (2012) therefore points out that social workers should instead seek ways to involve users in solving their own problems. It is more appropriate to speak of social workers’ co-participation in solving clients’ social problems than the reverse (participation of clients in solving their problems by social workers).

It is important that the principle of participation does not concern only adult, healthy clients. Social workers have a special role when working with clients whose decision-making capacity is limited or reduced (e.g. children, persons with some forms of mental illness or brain injury, drug-dependent persons, persons lacking legal capacity, and others). In such cases, social workers should distinguish domains in which people have reduced or limited decision-making capacity from those in which they can be independent and competent. It is important to identify and seek their strengths and support their participation to the greatest extent possible.

The participation principle is one of the core pillars of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). According to Guráň (2015), “the right of the child to be heard is, throughout the course of social development, perhaps the greatest, even revolutionary, change. Through this principle, the child becomes a full partner of adults in decisions concerning matters that affect the child. In this context, age and maturity are important factors. Participation in decision-making should naturally take these two important factors into account. In general, it is possible to state that a child is capable, from early childhood, of expressing a position, view, and mood (e.g. through drawing, movement, etc.), and it is our responsibility as adults to understand this communication rather than impose our demands on the child regarding how to express it. For this reason, the Committee on the Rights of the Child does not recommend setting age thresholds for when a child can be heard. In several countries, for example, it is age 10 or the age of criminal responsibility. Another very important condition for applying this principle is the obligation to give due weight to the child’s opinion in decisions concerning them. In other words, it is not enough to conduct a formal interview, record it, and so on, as often happens in courts, child welfare departments, police, and other settings including schools; rather, this opinion must be respected and fully considered in the decision-making process.”

The new Slovak ethical code (2015), given the increased risk of violating this principle for selected client groups, states: Also in special cases of clients who have long-term or permanent health impairments, limited legal capacity, children, seniors, and other vulnerable groups, the social worker and social work assistant strives to achieve the greatest possible degree of their autonomy and participation in decision-making concerning their person.

Principle of strengthening and empowering (empowerment) service users

Barker (2003, p. 142) defines “empowerment” as “a process of helping individuals, families, groups, and communities that leads to increasing their personal, interpersonal, socio-economic, and political powers and developing influence to improve their environment.” Thompson (2007, p. 22) characterized it as helping people gain greater control over their lives and circumstances. It can be understood in three dimensions:

• personal (psychological) – including developing trust, supporting self-esteem, and improving skills;
• cultural (discursive) – including influencing systems of thinking, for example regarding the change of stereotypes;
• structural – influencing broader social and political issues, such as poverty as a structural problem.

Thompson (2007, p. 23) emphasizes that empowerment is not something we can do for people—it would be contradictory. It is something we can do only with them. Individuals cannot be empowered by others, but they can be strengthened to empower themselves, that is, to gain greater control over their own lives. This means that it is important to develop cooperation as partnership and not act contrary to clients’ will.

In Slovakia, this principle was previously referred to as “help for self-help.” The new ethical code (2015) now states this principle explicitly, particularly in relation to the personal dimension: The social worker and social work assistant strives to strengthen and empower people in partnership in the helping process... supports, strengthens, and empowers the client toward own responsibility, own solution proposals, participation, and self-determination.

Havránková (In Matoušek 2008, p. 68) aptly notes in relation to casework that if a worker focuses on a client’s powerlessness, it reinforces dependency and expectations of help. If one focuses narrowly on “pathology,” it may actually strengthen the illness. But when the worker helps the client understand that they have the potential to solve their problem and supports them in this awareness, it helps them discover new perspectives and thus new ways of solving it. Their self-affirmation can then lead to personal, family, and social success.

Principle of an individualized approach to the client

Each client is unique and their problems are personal—that is, another person with the same problem will perceive it differently (Oláh et al., 2009, p. 103). The principle of an individualized approach to the client requires social workers to see the social client as a unique individual with their specific, non-repeatable capabilities, characteristics, and traits, which the social worker must accept in practice (Žilová, 2005).
Marie Krakešová (1946, p. 7) used the following image: “Just as a refined plant can flourish not only in a grand and richly equipped enterprise with the latest facilities, it does so only where a well-trained and responsible staff is also present, and where individual care is given to each plant.”

The new Slovak ethical code (2015) states that “the social worker and social work assistant deal with every person carefully and respectfully, taking into account individual differences, cultural, national, and ethnic diversity.”

Principles of respecting privacy and confidentiality of information

One of the core values of social work is trust, i.e. confidentiality, between social worker and client. Legally, this is achieved especially through protection of privacy (e.g. in Act No. 300/2005 Coll.) and data protection, in Slovakia especially through Act No. 122/2013 Coll. on the protection of personal data and on changes and amendments to certain laws. From an ethical perspective, this is not sufficient. Therefore, the Slovak ethical code states: The social worker and social work assistant respect client privacy. They document only those information that are strictly necessary for the provision of social work services. They are obliged to protect all documentation of service users from misuse. They respect the client’s right to inspect documentation concerning their person.

For all situations in professional social work there is a fundamental rule of confidentiality. The social worker and social work assistant must obtain client consent for all work procedures directly or indirectly related to them, as well as for informing a third person, and for video or audiovisual recording and their publication for study or research purposes. The duty of confidentiality also applies after service provision or termination of employment. Exceptions may be justified only on the basis of higher ethical or legal requirements.

An important ethical principle, therefore, is respecting privacy and preserving all confidential information obtained by the social worker about the client during the professional relationship and after its end. Respect for privacy is important not only in social work with individuals and families in their natural environment but also in residential social service settings. It is not uncommon there for social workers to enter a client’s room uninvited or to handle their private belongings. In line with the ethical code, documentation kept for the purpose of providing social services also belongs to the area of privacy. A key mechanism for respecting information confidentiality is consistent use of “informed consent” (Mátel, 2012, p. 152). Barker (2003, p. 217) defines it as “the client’s informed permission given to a social worker, an organization, or another professional person to use a specific intervention, including diagnosis, therapy, examination, and research. This permission must be based on all information needed for rational consent. Informed consent must be based on knowledge of risks and alternatives. One of the greatest risks of abuse of professional authority is the failure to obtain informed consent.” Informed consent, beyond information provided to third parties, includes permission for photography, audio and video recording for media, publication of information, and participation in research.

All information subject to informed consent must be presented to clients in understandable language, respectfully, and in a way that encourages questions. This applies especially in social work with clients whose cognitive comprehension is reduced. When working with children, persons deprived of legal capacity, or persons with limited legal capacity, it is important to identify their level of understanding so they can be informed appropriately according to their abilities and can express their wishes, desires, consent, or refusal. In significant decisions, consent must be obtained from their legal representatives, who are the parents of minors, a guardian, or a person with whom a minor child is in foster care. In cases where social workers perform activities to prevent a client from self-harm, they may act without informed consent (Mátel et al., 2012, p. 155).

Culleyová and Bond (2008) provide an example of informing clients at the start of a counseling relationship about general confidentiality principles: “What you say and do here is confidential. But I want to tell you something I tell every client at the beginning. If I think there is a risk that you could harm yourself or someone else, I may take measures and involve another party. If possible, I will discuss this with you first. Do you want to ask anything about this?”

Holistic approach

Today it is understood as treating each person as a whole being. The Slovak ethical code (2015), regarding the holistic approach, states: The social worker and social work assistant respects and protects the biological, psychological, cultural, spiritual, and social integrity of the client. They are interested in the whole person within the family, community, social, and natural environment and seek to understand all important aspects of their life. They focus on strengths of individuals, groups, families, and communities using social work services. They contribute to integrating service users into a social network of supportive personal relationships. They assist the client in solving problems concerning other areas of life.

The holistic approach means viewing a person not only as a client of social work with a social problem, but as a bio-psycho-cultural-spiritual-social being (Mátel, Schavel et al., 2011, p. 98). Thus it expresses the fact that human identity includes biological, psychological, social, cultural, and spiritual dimensions (cf. UNESCO, 2005). Therefore in social work it is crucial to know a client across all these dimensions. The entire process of social assessment and subsequent intervention should be adapted to this goal.

Social life as a whole is the intersection of economic, political, cultural, legal, psychological, sociological, educational, religious, ethical, national, and ethnic elements, all of which function as parts (Strieženec, 2006, p. 53). The requirement of holistic understanding points to the need to perceive social life as a whole. In communication with a client, the social worker respects their current state, prior status, manner and causes of reactions, the influence of the social environment, and their individual capacities for joint overcoming of social tensions (Strieženec, 2006, p. 35).

Žilová (2005, p. 73) states that a complexity approach in work with a client means adhering to principles of total perception of the client in the complexity of their problematic situation, regardless of whether all aspects of the identified reality fall within the social worker’s authority to resolve. If the resolution of some circumstances of the client’s social issues exceeds the competence of the social worker, their duty is to refer the client to another institution or another professional, or alternatively advise and inform them about other possible solutions.

Comprehensive approach according to the Slovak ethical code includes: The social worker and social work assistant respects the knowledge, competences, and practical experience of colleagues and other professional workers... Social work is carried out interdisciplinarily in cooperation with other professions as well as with all persons and institutions that can help optimize clients’ social functioning.

The social worker and social work assistant are aware of their professional and competence limits and boundaries of their professional competence. They inform the client about possibilities of using all social work services and other forms of help, not only within the institution where they practice social work. They are obliged to ensure continuity of services and support if needed further, even if they themselves end provision for valid reasons. If they are unable to provide adequate social work services to the client, they refer them to a colleague, another helping professional, or an institution.

Conclusion

At the beginning we stated that the ethical code itself cannot guarantee ethical behavior based on individual responsibility of social workers. Identifying and presenting ethical principles of social work in more detail can help increase awareness of the areas of professional practice in which social workers and social work assistants should be especially sensitive, where ingrained stereotypes opposing these principles should be reconsidered so that they correspond to the ethical standards of the profession.

Author: Doc. PhDr. ThDr. Andrej Mátel, PhD.
List of used literature

[1] AADLAND, E. – MATULAYOVÁ, T. (eds.) 2011. Etické reflexie v pomáhajúcich profesiách. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita. 192 s. ISBN 978-80-555-0331-8.
[2] BANKS, S. 2006. Ethics and Values in Social Work. 3rd Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 218 p. ISBN 978-1-4039-9420-2.
[3] BARKER, R. L. 2003. The Social Work Dictionary. 5th Ed. Washington, DC: NASW. 493 p. ISBN 0-87101-355-X.
[4] BICKOVÁ, L. et al. 2011. Individuální plánování a role klíčového pracovníka v sociálních službách. Tábor: Asociace poskytovatelů sociálních služeb ČR. 280 s. ISBN 978-80-904668-1-4.
[5] CULLEY, S. – BOND, T. 2008. Integrativní přístup v poradenství a psychoterapii. Praha: Portál. 244 s. ISBN 978-80-7367-452-6.
[6] GURÁŇ, P. – BALOGOVÁ, B. – MARČÍKOVÁ, I. – MÁTEL, A. 2015. Vzdelávací program nadstavbovej odbornej činnosti Odborné metódy práce v krízových situáciách. Bratislava: IVPR. 62 s.
[7] IFSW / IASSW. 2004. Ethics in Social Work: Statement of Principles. Geneva: IFSW. [online 2010-15-8]. Dostupné na internete: .
[8] KRAKEŠOVÁ-DOŠKOVÁ, M. 1946. Psychogeneze sociálních případů. O vniku sociální úchylnosti. Praha: Nová Osvěta. 343 s.
[9] MÁTEL, A. a kol. 2012. Etika sociálnej práce. 2. doplnené a aktualizované vydanie. Bratislava: VŠ ZaSP sv. Alžbety. 264 s. ISBN 978-80-8132-045-3.
[10] MÁTEL, A. – SCHAVEL, M. et al. 2011. Aplikovaná sociálna patológia v sociálnej práci. Bratislava: VŠ ZaSP sv. Alžbety. 442 s. ISBN 978-80-8132-009-5.
[11] MATOUŠEK, O. a kol. 2008. Metody a řízení sociální práce. 2. vyd. Praha: Portál. 384 s. ISBN 978-80-7367-502-8.
[12] NOVÁK, T. 2006. Manželské a rodinné poradenství. Praha: Grada. 108 s. ISBN 80-247-1316-0.
[13] NOVOTNÁ J. – LAŠEK, J. 2010. Autonomie jako sociální potřeba. In KAPPL, M. – SMUTEK, M. – TRUHLÁŘOVÁ, Z. (eds.) Etika sociální práce. Hradec Králové: Gaudeamus, s. 427-431. ISBN 978-80-7435-037-5.
[14] OLÁH, M. – SCHAVEL, M. – ONDRUŠOVÁ, Z. – NAVRÁTIL, P. 2009. Sociálna práca – vybrané kapitoly z dejín, teórie a metód sociálnej práce. Bratislava: VŠZaSP sv. Alžbety. 228 s. ISBN 80-969449-6-7.
[15] REAMER, F. G. 1998. Ethical Standards in Social Work. Washington, DC: NASW. 307 s. ISBN 0-87101-293-6.
[16] REAMER, F. G. 2006. Social Work Values and Ethics. 3rd Ed. New York: Columbia University Press. 240 s. ISBN 978-0-231-13789-8.
[17] ŘEZNÍČEK, I. 1994. Metody sociální práce. Praha: SLON. 75 s.
[18] Slovenská komora sociálnych pracovník a asistentov sociálnej práce. 2015. Etický kódex sociálneho pracovníka a asistenta sociálnej práce. [online 2015-18-9]. Dostupné na internete: http://www. employment.gov.sk/sk/rodina-socialna-pomoc/socialna-praca/ .
[19] STRIEŽENEC, Š. 1996. Slovník sociálneho pracovníka. Trnava: AD. 255 s. ISBN 80-967589-0-X.
[20] THOMPSON, N. 2007. Power and empowerment. Lyme Regis: Russell House. 110 s. ISBN 978-1-903855-99-7.
[21] TVRDOŇ, M. – BAKOVÁ, D. – MALIŠKOVÁ, Z. – MÁTEL, A. – MOJTOVÁ, M. 2014. Etika sociálnej práce. Nitra: UKF. 196 s. ISBN 978-80558-0665-5.
[22] UNESCO. 2005. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and human Rights. In Resolution 15 adopted by UNESCO's General Conference at its 33rd session on 19 October 2005. Paris: Unesco, 2005, p. 74-80.
[23] Zákon č. 365/2004 Z. z. o rovnakom zaobchádzaní v niektorých oblastiach a o ochrane pred diskrimináciou a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (antidiskriminačný zákon).
[24] Zákon č. 300/2005 Z. z. z trestný zákon v znení neskorších predpisov.
[25] Zákon č. 122/2013 Z. z. o ochrane osobných údajov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov.
[26] ŽILOVÁ, A. 2005. Úvod do teórie sociálnej práce. Badín: Mentor. 130 s. ISBN 80-968932-1-1.

This article was produced within the framework of the VEGA 1/0335/15 project Identification of Professional Values in Social Work in the Slovak Republic.