Refence to email address

BUSINESS ETHICS
(COUPLES WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES FACE UNFAIR WEDDING BAR)
Table of Contents
Q1. Ethical Principles Affected in the Case Study    3
Q2. Implementation of Effective Communication and Interpersonal Skills for Promoting Greater Respect as well as Dignity in this Case    5
Q3. Reflection on the Impact of this Case on Me, My Individual Learning, Development and Practice    8
References    10
Q1. Ethical Principles Affected in the Case Study
The ethics are the rules, which determine the positive and negative aspect of an action and categorising them as either right or wrong actions. As mentioned by Oye et al. (2019), the rule of ethics and framed on a set of core values, which are termed as the principles of ethics and it includes the aspects of respect, dignity, right, freedom and responsibility, which try to make the values of human incorporated in applicable format. In the given case study of Sarah and Daniel, it was found that different values of the ethical principles got involved in securing respective perspectives, making the values of one cross the functioning of another, creating a complex situation at hand. In the given case study, the conflicting values are shown posed between Sarah-Daniel on one hand, who wanted to get ma
ied to each other, exerting their rights and freedom and local Adult Social Care team, who exerted their preferences to responsibility of social care, creating conflict of interests.
Respect
Firstly, it is seen that in the given case study, the ethical principle of respect is affected adversely, when considered from the perspective of the actions compelled to be performed by Sarah and Daniel. As stated by Brooks (2019), one of the fundamental values of ethics is the principle of respect of individuals, which promotes the idea that every person must be treated with respect despite the deviation from the idealistic concept of a respectable person. The principle of respect supports the idea that persons with disabilities are also treated equally despite safeguarding, guiding and assisting them in their daily tasks. However, in the given case Sarah was not allowed to get ma
ied to Daniel, posing their learning disability as the reason for the disapproval of the local Adult Social Care team.
The wedding of Sarah and Daniel has been delayed for more than one year and Sarah has been forced to give capacity assessment test, in which she failed despite showing high values for relationships. Considering the delay of the ma
iage and forcibly making Sarah take part in capacity assessments make it clear that she and her groom Daniel had not been treated as normal human beings, which violated the principle of respect for disabled persons. It can be argued that as people with learning disabilities are susceptible of causing harm to self and others the Adult Social Care team did the right thing. As supported by Daniels (2019), people with learning disabilities are capable of causing serious harm to self and others as they have very little understanding of human interaction in cases of ma
iage the potential chances of harm is even higher as sex plays an important role after ma
iage. Despite the emphasis on safeguarding nature of the local Adult Social Care team, it has to be admitted that they did not consider Sarah and Daniel as regular human with respect.
Dignity
Considering the ethical principle of dignity of individuals, it can be said that in the cu
ent case study very little regards for dignity has been retained, as made evident in the actions of the local Adult Social Care team executed over Sarah and Daniel. As opined by Zdravkova (2019), the ethical principle of dignity of a human being ensures the person is able to act according to his own desires, while keeping in mind that the desires do not hamper self or others. In the given case, it is seen that Sarah and Daniel were aware about their learning disabilities and Sarah in particular, have been very conscious about relationship and their values.
It is also found that despite suffering from learning disabilities, both Sarah and Daniel are adults and their consents should have been valued. It is also found that Sarah’s ma
iage had been delayed by one year and she had been forced to take up the capacity assessment test, which hints at the fact that her dignity was not considered and her will was overshadowed by the aspect of safeguarding a vulnerable person. As mentioned by Bailey et al. (2019), despite disabilities, both mental and physical a disabled person must be allowed to make decisions for him or herself, if the person is in a state of mind to execute the action without ample risk. It becomes clear that the Adult Social Care team has not prioritised dignity of the individuals, raising questions ethical practices in a contrasting scenario.
Rights
The Equality Act 2010 in UK ensures that every person is treated equally and the norms for the disabled persons are for the safeguarding of the disabled persons in the long-term process. In the given case study, it is seen that Sarah and Daniel are not allowed to get ma
ied, as the Adult Social Care team felt that as both were challenged with learning disabilities, their ma
iage would have been risky. Seen from the context of Sarah and Daniel as normal human being, their Right to Ma
iage, which comes under the Article 12 of The Human Rights Act can be considered denied.
According to Article 12 of The Human Rights Act, an adult person can ma
y a person of his or her choice with mutual acceptance and it is a part of their fundamental rights (Liberty Human Rights, 2019). However, considering the fact that both Daniel and Sarah have learning disabilities and their ma
iage would
ing in the aspect of sex, the potential chances of Sarah getting raped is significantly high, which makes it evident that the actions of the Adult Social care team is justified from a social wellbeing point, affecting the issue of rights in the case.
Freedom
One of the major principles of ethics that got adversely affected has been freedom. In the given case study, it is seen that Sarah is not allowed to attain her will of ma
ying Daniel. In addition, the forcing of Sarah to give capacity assessment tests also shows the lack of freedom offered. As mentioned by Bang (2019), the principle of freedom to a person is only approved when the person does not have ample potential for causing harm, even to self.
Considering that aspect of Sarah and Daniel’s learning disabilities, the restriction on their ma
iage is denied, undermining the exertion of freedom on the part of Sarah and Daniel. It is also seen that Sarah’s will of not attending the capacity assessment test has also been denied and she is forced to take the test, which is also a denial of freedom. It is seen that Sarah’s assessors have mentioned her ability to value relationships, yet she had not been passed in the test, hinting at the passive practice...