Your first two paragraphs here demonstrate the problem.
You seem to be under the impression that "ethics" is reducible to "codes of ethics", or codes of professional ethics, or something like that, such that a departure from those codes is pro tanto an ethical failure.

What this account fails to accommodate is any way of asking whether those codes are themselves defensible, how they're to be interpreted, and whether there's scope for decent and admirable behaviour outside them. This last bit is particularly important.

Short version: if your idea of ethics goes no further than professional codes, you're a bit of a moral failure.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 6 Feb 2012, 10:28, 1 reply)

"Your first two paragraphs here demonstrate the problem.
You seem to be under the impression that "ethics" is reducible to "codes of ethics", or codes of professional ethics, or something like that, such that a departure from those codes is pro tanto an ethical failure."

If you agree that you should consider your professions 'code of ethics' to at be at least a subset of your ethics in relation to all actions taken whilst acting under - or subsequent to - your professional role (and not just your job role), then you agree that you should abide by those ethics in order to practise ethically. That is, you agree that, such and such a code constitutes 'ethics' (or part of), therefor, a breach of the same is tantamount to a breach of your own accepted ethics.

"whether there's scope for decent and admirable behaviour outside them. This last bit is particularly important."

Indeed, it is. It's also important to note whether there's scope for decent and admirable behaviour whilst still acting within them. UPP's mum was not presented as having made any realistic effort to have seen whether this was the case, nor was she presented as having made a true and accurate record of evidence of need, nor was she presented as having taken appropriate action with a long term effect. In short, she was presented as having blindly taken the short term option, simply out of personal indignation.

None of the replies I've received thus far have contained any glimmer of recognition or concern for the missing story elements that would have indicated that fully ethical, long term effective, legal and professional behaviour was taking place.

It seems to be a case of cheering on a pron story and, inadvertantly, cheering on the violition of safegaurds and protections that are put in place precisely to protect the inherent vulnerabilites of all clients that come under professional care.

If all you've managed to glean from my posts is that I'm supposedly some sort of dogged rule botherer, rather than why I'm concerned those rules were broken in terms of the potential impact on the client and what it means for UPPs mums wider practise, then I doubt further correspondance with you will benefit either of us.
(TheThinMan, Mon 6 Feb 2012, 19:03, closed)

correspondEnce
Also: HA HA VIRGIN
(square go, Mon 6 Feb 2012, 19:39, closed)

Thank you,
I'm aware of a number of OTs with dyslexia who would be very grateful if you were to extend your kind offer of free spelling police services to them.
(TheThinMan, Mon 6 Feb 2012, 21:07, closed)

Do you live under a bridge or in supported housing?
I honestly can't decide.
(square go, Mon 6 Feb 2012, 21:31, closed)

Well,
"If you agree..." But I don't agree. Codes of professional ethics are at most - not at least - a subset of ethics in abstracto. (The only time professional ethicist advert to codes of professional ethics is when they're pointing and laughing at the inadequacy of said codes.) And the idea that you're breaching your own accepted ethics is very puzzling indeed, given that it's hard to imagine anyone acting in any way except that they think it is right in its own terms, or good, or justified.

As for the other stuff, it looks like your complaint is at least as much about the OP's telling of the story - that he didn't include every single administrative detail - as about the actual content. For the record, the content was (as far as I can tell) that a person did something supererogatory for someone else. We don't know about the other stuff - but we don't need to, you utter dullard.

Having said all this, I'm tempted to agree with the final twelve words of your post.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 6 Feb 2012, 20:00, closed)

Judging by the quality of your reply, and the misrepresentation of my arguement made there-in, I would have to declare that my last 12 words were entirely correct.

See you.
(TheThinMan, Mon 6 Feb 2012, 20:37, closed)