Abstract
The context of care in assertive community treatment (ACT) can be precarious and generate ethical issues involving the principles of autonomy and paternalism. This focus group study examined case managers’ situated accounts of moral reasoning. Our findings show how they expressed strong moral obligation towards helping the clients. Their moral reasoning reflected a paternalistic position where, on different occasions, the potential benefits of their interventions would be prioritised at the expense of protecting the clients’ personal autonomy. The case managers’ reasoning emphasised situational awareness, but there was a risk of supporting paternalistic interventions and denying the clients’ right to autonomy.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
