I understand what you are saying there,
he clearly needed a long term solution to his situation. Cleaning him up and leaving him to get in the same situation again is only a short term fix.

However, no decent human being, faith aside, could knowingly leave a man to quite literally wallow in his own shit due to bureaucracy.
( Mrs Entity is in hiding., Sat 4 Feb 2012, 23:11, 1 reply)

The problem is,
the exact same ethical argument 'No decent human being', could be made to justify any behaviour that is taken when placed under an extreme circumstance (although if you've ever worked in LD or MH, or older persons services, filthy homes are atypical yet are still common enough to hardly qualify as 'extreme'), even if that behaviour is neither the best available in term of short or long term outcome, or is detrimental or exposes the client to needlessly elevated risk.

The point of using professional reasoning is to evaluate which option is best long term, given the situation, and then implement it. The 'decent human being' option is the most tempting (and often the most emotionally rewarding), but it's not always the best. Thankfully, the 'decent human being' option and the 'professional' option often coincide.

I'm not sure why you said "However, no decent human being, faith aside, could knowingly leave a man to quite literally wallow in his own shit due to bureaucracy.". No one here is asserting that the options are either:

do what UPP's mum did, or,
leave him to live in the house whilst he gets a standard referral to environmental health.

The possibility of emergency housing, or an expediated referral was mentioned above.
(TheThinMan, Mon 6 Feb 2012, 20:58, closed)