help him more and support him further. We placed him on a cognitive behavioural therapy CBT course. He is now a regular client striving in the groups he attends. We did arrange a supervised meeting on a one to one basis with kellian do discuss any issues they might have, kellian disclosed some of her troubles she has and why she requires extra support from many of different staff members. As under the Data Protection Act (1998) sharing any information to another client isn’t expectable, we have no right to disclose any personal information regarding any individual this wound undermine and breech the polices this would not only be un ethical, but committing a serious crime.

With kellian choosing to disclosing some of her complex needs helped give Steven have a better understanding of her her situation. An argument as to why allow the client to stay in the organization. The manager wanted to place him on the barred list and stop him from attending anyone session etc.. we had a meeting and discussed the way forward for both clients as steven had shown aggression previously and had been warned about his behaviour but I felt it was worth giving him this chance to prove himself only on the basis he took part in some counselling sessions before he were allowed to re join any activity’s my manager agreed to this suggestion but did make it clear it was down to myself to make it work. Otherwise he would have to leave the organization. We all deserve a break and sometimes it pays of, good moral character, an individual should analyse the consequences of the exercising bad moral character and preform actions that are ethically correct. I go into the Deontology described as “Duty” is based on rules, action morals discussing by way of non consequtionist, doing the right thing because its right, people acting accordingly, regardless of the “good” or the” consequences” that might be produced. Darwel (2002)
This was the approach we taken regarding Steven, policies say with a zero tolerance to any form of abusive behaviour, as he was the client being disruptive. However, using the Deontology view was preferred to use in this instance it was seen the “right” thing to do rather than the contrast of “Utilitarianism” approach, which places the right or wrong based on the consequences beyond the scope of their own interests of other people such as the more good of the “consequences” of an act the better and/or more right act. Bentham (1968) if this theory was applied in the first instance then the client Steven would have still of had underlining issues that ought to have been addressed but would have gone un noticed and banned from the organization. It was the right decision, So therefore, using and applying the Deontology theory in my view was the best outcome for all involved.

Whilst recognising a greater accountability as an example if you ask a group of people to Define leadership, everyone in the group would have their own view on the understanding in leadership. The accountability within the specific needs of the organization Mohant (1993) being accountable, responsible for ones work and answering for the repercussions of ones actions Beaver (1993) As with Steven we were would have been accou