Key principles of ethical decision-making in safeguarding

People’s human rights are protected and applied – including their rights as consumers in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights. 

People’s identity and culture are respected, protected and promoted, including disabled people’s and their whānau’s culture, sexual orientation, gender identity and spiritual identity, and their practices, values and beliefs. 

Source: New Zealand Disability Support Network (NZDSN).

Information shared by a disabled person experiencing violence, abuse or neglect (or by someone on their behalf), must be handled sensitively and lawfully. 

Confidentiality: Confidentiality protects dignity, trust, and personal privacy.  
Information should be shared only when it is necessary to prevent harm or when required by law. 

Any personal information that needs to be shared must be password protected.  

• Involving a legal proxy: Sometimes disabled people have a legal proxy (such as a Welfare Guardian, Property Manager or Administrator) acting on their behalf. In these situations, information may be shared with that person in line with the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act, and only in a way that reflects the disabled person’s will and preference. 

Policies and procedures: Safeguarding providers must have clear policies and procedures in place to protect and maintain people’s privacy and confidentiality.  
Anyone (including by a disabled person experiencing violence, abuse or neglect, or their whānau, or other support people) is entitled to view these policies and to make a complaint if they believe privacy principles are not being upheld. 

Secure storage: All personal information gathered by a safeguarding organisation must be stored securely, whether digitally or in hard-copy form.  
This means using secure (password-protected) digital and/or (locked) hard-copy files – and reinforcing this requirement in policies and organisational culture. 
Information must never be stored in inappropriate locations such as a worker’s vehicle. 

Organisational culture: Establish these practices through your organisational culture by writing them into your policies, including them in staff training sessions, induction programmes for new staff, reminders at team meetings, leadership modelling of respect for confidentiality, and immediate follow-up when aware of any breaches or risks. 

Where an agency is about to undertake a safeguarding intervention, the disabled person experiencing violence, abuse or neglect should be supported to provide their voluntary and informed consent. This includes clearly explaining risks, options, implications and any consequences, in ways that are accessible and appropriate for the person, and designed to keep them safe.  Consent processes need to be handled sensitively when safeguarding disabled people who are experiencing violence, abuse or neglect, or who are at risk of this.  

When it is not immediately safe to seek consent, the SAFA Co-ordinator (or others with responsibility for the safeguarding) must carefully determine the need for urgency and safety, while also taking account of a person’s rights and their will and preference. 

Obtaining informed consent is closely connected to supported decision-making, which is a core safeguard within New Zealand’s disability sector. 

Find more information about:

• The consent process, including what to do if it’s not immediately safe for the disabled adult who is experiencing violence, abuse or neglect to give their consent.  

• Enabling accessibility (making sure your services and guidance are easy to access, easy to understand and easy to use – especially for disabled people)

• Supported decision-making (finding out about the person’s own will and preferences, and not making decisions for them)

Sometimes professionals or community members are legally or ethically required to share concerns with others, in order to keep someone safe.  

• Aotearoa New Zealand’s Safeguarding Adults From Abuse (SAFA) approach involves a coordinated, multi-agency team response that allows relevant information to be shared for the purpose of assessing and addressing harm. Source: PASAT.

Find out more about the safeguarding process and what to expect, including information about multi-agency teams. 

Safeguarding is not about taking over - it’s about building a person’s confidence and capability to make their own choices, and providing an environment where that’s safe to occur.  

If a person isn’t readily able to convey their personal choices, or doesn’t feel safe or confident to do so, the SAFA Co-ordinator will help to ensure that supported decision-making can occur.  

This might involve an independent advocate for the person and/or enabling (or strengthening) a support network for them, so the person is supported in making their own choices.  

Enabling supported decision-making is a fundamental part of your safeguarding practice and ethical decision-making.  

You can access guidance about supported decision-making to inform appropriate policies, procedures and practices. It covers:  

• what is supported decision-making

• substitute decision-making, and why it’s not preferred   

• the main elements of supported decision-making. 

• This information is equally important for multi-agency teams, families and whānau, support workers and other support crew, when assisting a disabled person to convey their own choices (i.e. when stating their will and preference).   

Note: In some situations, substituted decision-making will be considered if the disabled person does not seem to comprehend the risk to their life or to their property, or cannot communicate their will and preference in a timely manner. This can add another layer of complexity in ethical decision-making, as the decisions made on their behalf may not always be in line with what the disabled person would want. 

Ethical dilemmas occur when safety, autonomy, rights, and cultural considerations overlap or conflict.  

Safeguarding policy in Aotearoa New Zealand highlights human rights, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Enabling Good Lives, and the UNCRPD as foundations for ethical action.
Source: Disability Support.

Safeguarding interventions must also align with the Crimes (Amendment 2011) Act 1961 and the Family Violence Act 2018. 

As an example, there is an obligation under the Crimes Act for those who are close to the Adult at Risk to report abuse - and criminal liability if they don't report it.   See more information.

• You can access more information on relevant legislation and rights-based frameworks to support your safeguarding work and ethical approach. 

SAFA Co-ordinators, multi-agency teams, and family, whānau and friends must balance protection and safety with respect for the person’s rights and for their own choices (their own will and preference).  

• It’s also important to weigh up whether an intervention would (or could) cause more harm. The solution you develop must not be worse than the initial risk. 

• Determining when to obtain consent can create a dilemma.  

• It might not be safe to seek that consent from the disabled person immediately, depending on the situation they’re in. 

• If it’s not a safe situation, you’ll need to invest time in appropriate consultation and information sharing, to help you access the disabled person - and to obtain their consent when it’s safe for that person to provide it. 

• Safeguarding without consent may need to get underway in the meantime, in the interests of protecting the disabled person and if you’re confident that this would align with their own choice. 

For your action: 

Head to the next section called Scenarios for
ethical decision-making and consider the various dilemmas and the guidance presented here to support your decision-making.

Disabled people have the right to make informed choices about their lives, even when others believe those choices are unwise or involve risk. 

Sometimes people’s own personal actions (or lack of action) can cause neglect or expose them to risk of harm.  

• An informed choice means the person understands the nature and consequences of their decision. 

• Given that understanding, it’s vital that people can make choices about their own lives. 

• Sometimes people don’t want to address violence, abuse or neglect, or to be involved in a safeguarding response. The reasons for this are often complex. 

These situations can present a dilemma for professionals and whānau / family members (see Dilemmas 1 and 3 in the following section called – Scenarios for
ethical decision-making), who fear the person they care about will experience further harm or self-neglect. 

These situations can also present complexity for person, who might be worried about experiencing further violence, abuse or neglect, or loss of care, or isolation, or a change in living circumstances (such as moving into residential care) - if they speak up.  

As you undertake ethical decision-making, you’ll need to constantly weigh ‘proportionality and risk responsiveness’. 

• This means that your safeguards need to be proportionate to the risks (and the likelihood of risk) to a person and their circumstances. 

• And closely aligned with the need to “do no more harm”. 

Safeguarding should, as far as possible, minimise risk - with due consideration of an individual’s dignity of risk:  

• All people have freedom to make informed choices that involve a level of risk. 

• Safeguarding professionals should be guided by care, empathy and aroha, in upholding these human rights. 

• Involve the multi-agency team or your colleagues for guidance and advice in your safeguarding / whakahaumarutia mahi: consult, consult, consult.