The Sara Parker Case: A Three-Part Ethical Test
The prompt says there is often no right answer, which is an instruction about how to write. Certainty reads as not having understood the case.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 16, 2026
Three considerations, supplied — use them as a method
Two features of this prompt shape the whole answer. It supplies a three-part focusing device from Yegidis for judging whether something is ethical, which means those three questions are the method rather than background reading — use them as headings and work the case through each. And it states that ethics are opinions informed by values, that reasonable people disagree, and that there is often no right answer. That is not a disclaimer; it is an instruction about register. A post that reaches confident certainty has misread the assignment, and one that refuses to take a position has misread it in the other direction. What is wanted is a defended judgement that acknowledges what would be lost by taking it — which is what distinguishes an ethical analysis from an opinion. Write your first reaction down and then set it aside, because that is the reasoning you will otherwise defend without noticing.
Work the case rather than the abstractions. Separate the facts from your reaction to them, because the reaction usually arrives first and then recruits reasons. Identify every party with a stake, including the ones who are not in the room: the client, the family, the agency, the funder, other clients affected by how this one is handled, and the profession. Then name the values in tension by their proper names — self-determination against protection, confidentiality against duty to warn, honesty against therapeutic benefit, individual need against equitable distribution of a limited service. Anchor the analysis in the code's actual sections rather than in a general appeal to ethics, since the code is specific and citing it precisely is checkable. Then commit, and close with the sentence most posts omit: what you would be giving up by deciding this way, and what would have to change for you to decide differently.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Apply a supplied ethical decision framework as a working method.
- 02Separate factual description from evaluative reaction.
- 03Name competing values precisely rather than generally.
- 04Take a defended position while acknowledging its costs.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A factual summary of the case, separated from evaluation.
- 02The three considerations applied, each as a distinct step.
- 03All stakeholders identified, including absent ones.
- 04The competing values named precisely.
- 05Relevant code sections cited specifically.
- 06A defended position with what it costs.
The facts, the three questions, then a defended position
The facts
Summarise the case without evaluating it.
Consideration one
Apply the first of Yegidis's focusing questions.
Consideration two
Apply the second.
Consideration three
Apply the third.
Stakeholders and values
Name every party and the values in tension.
Your position, and its cost
Commit and say what the decision sacrifices.
The code sections that actually apply
Recommended databases
- National Association of Social Workers
- The assigned Yegidis reading
- PubMed Central
- Social work ethics journals
Search sequence
- 1.Read the Yegidis passage carefully; the three considerations are the method.
- 2.Find the specific code sections that apply to this case, not the code generally.
- 3.Look for a published discussion of a comparable dilemma.
- 4.Check whether any legal duty applies before treating it as purely ethical.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Code of Ethics: English
National Association of Social Workers · 2021
The code, for the specific standards your analysis should cite.
- 02
Patient Rights and Ethics
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf, US National Library of Medicine · 2023
The principle framework — autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice — applied to cases.
- 03
Virtue Ethics
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2022
Virtue ethics as an alternative lens, useful where principles conflict.
- 04
Deontological Ethics
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2020
Duty-based reasoning, for cases where consequences do not settle the question.
- 05
Individual Moral Philosophies and Ethical Decision Making of Undergraduate Athletic Training Students and Educators
Journal of Athletic Training · 2008
Evidence that personal moral philosophy shapes professional judgement.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Reaching confident certainty in a case the prompt describes as contested.
- Refusing to take any position at all.
- Citing 'the code of ethics' generally rather than a specific standard.
- Omitting stakeholders who are not present in the case narrative.
Submission checklist
- Are the three considerations used as steps rather than mentioned?
- Have you named the values in tension by their proper names?
- Is a specific code section cited?
- Does your conclusion say what it gives up?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.