Critical
Analysis: Navigating the Ethical Labyrinth of Peer Support.
Cynthia kana. Blog 2.
On a more profound level of analysis,
the peer-support dynamic presented a complex ethical dilemma: the inherent
contradiction between the obligation of friendship and the emergence of
professional responsibility. According to Aveyard (2015), critical thinking in
health and social care requires us to be able to question not only evidence but
also the morality of our actions. In this regard, the dilemma was determined by
the concepts of biomedical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019):
beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy.
The primary critical challenge was
establishing and maintaining boundaries. The friend’s increasing reliance
created a situation where autonomy (their right to make choices, including
choices about seeking professional help) was potentially being undermined by an
overly directive approach stemming from a misplaced sense of beneficence (the
desire to ‘do good’ by controlling the narrative). The thoughtful practitioner,
even in a non-professional capacity, must critically assess the risk of
non-maleficence violation, the potential harm caused by over-involvement or
offering unqualified advice. A lack of professional training meant that advice
offered was often anecdotal rather than evidence-based, a practice that online
blogs from professionals frequently warn against (The Guardian Social Care
Network Blog, 2025).
A significant area for critical thought
involved unpacking the inherent assumptions about mental health support. The
initial, culturally ingrained assumption was often that 'talking cures all' or
that 'tough love' was necessary. Critical thinking mandates that these deeply
held beliefs be subjected to rigorous scrutiny (The Foundation for Critical
Thinking website for Students and Professionals, 2025). Through self-enquiry
and research (The Nursing Times Journal, 2025), this practitioner learned to
replace these assumptions with two critical frameworks:
The
Biopsychosocial Model
Recognising that distress is
multi-faceted and cannot be resolved by one person or one conversation alone
(Wade & Halligan, 2017).
Figure 3: Biopsychosocial Model (Wade
& Halligan, 2017)
The
Principle of Signposting
A professional and ethical obligation to
direct the individual towards appropriate, qualified help (National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), 2019).
The ethical tightrope walk also involved
balancing confidentiality with the duty of care. While the friend’s disclosures
were made under the implicit seal of friendship, critical thinking required
evaluating the risk of harm. The moment distress escalated to expressions of
hopelessness, the uncritical assumption of ‘keeping secrets’ was challenged by
the ethical need to ensure safety. This is a crucial area of learning for any
future HSC professional: the thoughtful practitioner must recognise that
personal loyalty is secondary to the duty of care when immediate safety is
compromised. Fook (2012) suggests that it is in these moments of ethical
discomfort that critical reflection is most potent, forcing us to integrate our
personal values with emerging professional standards. The decision to involve a
trusted family member, against the friend’s initial wishes, was an action taken
not from a place of judgment, but from a position of critical
evaluation of the risk to non-maleficence.
The emotional toll on the supporter must
also be critically analysed. Compassion fatigue, the emotional and physical
exhaustion caused by prolonged exposure to another's trauma or distress, is a
real phenomenon even in peer support (Najjar et al., 2017). The failure to
implement reflective self-care mechanisms early on, a professional failing
projected onto a personal situation, led to a period of burnout for the
supporter. Without critically examining one’s own well-being, the ability to
provide practical, unbiased support diminishes significantly (KCL Social Care
Workforce Blog, 2025).
It emphasizes efficient application of theoretical frameworks, especially biomedical ethics and Biopsychosocial Model, in the process of relating personal contemplation with professional standards. The boundaries, autonomy, and compassion fatigue exploration, as well as contemporary evidence use, can be considered strengths. As the summary can give, the work may be improved by the introduction of structural or cultural factors that affect ethical decision-making.
ReplyDeleteJose thankyou for your comment, it was a great experience to learning about blogging
ReplyDeleteCynthia your reflection demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the ethical challenges in peer support, especially the balance between confidentiality and duty of care. The decision to involve a trusted family member is well justified through the principle of non-maleficence, and your integration of Fooks perspective adds depth to the analysis.
ReplyDeleteMelanie by comment this blog, you are given me courage to achieved and finish the blog. thankyou
ReplyDeletecynthia the aim of your reflection was to explore ethical challenges related to the duty of confidentiality.
ReplyDelete