The organization felt we ought to act, there was an ethical issue here we could see something had to be done. Firstly, we spoken to Steven at length it was transparent he was not aware of any wrong doing he appeared very apologetic, we spoke about counselling as he has shown signs of aggression outside the complex on one occasion previously. He agreed for counselling sessions and to see if there were anything underpinning his aggression, it did however, transpire he was having marital issues at home with arguments on a regular basis, which brought out his aggression at the group with kellian, by his own admission he went on to say he wouldn’t off over re acted so harshly at the situation with kellian. With this information, we could 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