Abuse Neglect Or Nothing to Worry about

0 Comment

Broudy for assistance. She notes that Kim had shown her cuts on her body and confessed that she was fed up with her condition. While Kim had revealed that her father was involved in her condition, Mary suspected domestic molestation or ‘self-infliction’, concerns that she communicated to Ms. Broudy. Broudy determined to help but Kim was not willing to open up. As a result, Broudy reported the matter to the school principle and counselor but they took no action. Kim’s parents were equally unconcerned about her condition. Possible action for Ms. Broudy Ms. Broudy’s position identified her as a custodian to students while within the school’s premises. She also had a moral obligation as a member of the society to ensure others’ well being. A number of ethical issues therefore arise to determine possible courses of action for any person in Bourdy’s position. She was for example bound by ethical principles of respect for the dignity of persons, responsible caring, and responsibility to society (Pope and Vasquez, p. 93, 94). As a result, Bourdy was under ethical obligation to protect any of her students from any form of bodily degradation such as molestation or physical abuse. The duty of care and social responsibility also required her to protect students from possible ‘self-inflicted’ harm. … My decision to talk to Kim and finally report the matter to the administration would be supported by consequentialist theory that values impacts of a decision or an action. This is because if successful, such actions would help Kim out of her problem. I would also consider reporting the matter to law enforcement agency if the school failed to help Kim (Strike and Soltis, p. 158- 160). Neglect or abuse Possibility of neglect Neglect defines failure to provide for and protect a child from harm. Based on the facts of the case, if the parents were not involved in abusing Kim, then they were responsible for negligence. This is because the parents had evidently failed to take actions to protect their child from her source of harm. The injuries having been on Kim’s wrist suggested that the parents were aware of what their child was going through but did not bother to seek a solution. Similarly, their response when called upon by the school’s administration also indicated lack of interest in protecting Kim from her problem. While her mother did not even comment on the matter, her father disregarded it. Kim’s parents were therefore negligent for failing to protect her from her deteriorating condition. They, contrary to Mary and Broudy’s actions, communicated lack of social responsibility, disregard to other people’s welfare and lack of the moral doctrine of utilitarianism. The parents were as a result neglecting indicators of Kim’s problems that remained unsolved (Pope and Vasquez, p. 93, 94). Difference between neglect and abuse While abuse involves direct infliction of harm to a person, neglect relates to failure to ensure a person’s safety from harm. Neglect is therefore an act of omission while abuse is an act of