- Ethical Care actively promotes inclusiveness from all parties affected by process and decision making on the use of its methods and approach.
All commissioning organisations be they private or public purchasers, Foster Parents, Adoption Teams and Lone Workers, need to express their expectations and wants of our training system, be it for young people, adults, elderly, learning disability, physical disability, mental health and or challenging behaviours.
The Ethical Care system has and continues to be adapted for many different areas of care and most definitely one size do not fit all. Obviously our expertise is recognised as leaders in this field; however we also recognise the needs of experts in other areas of care and endorse the practice.
We also have a moral obligation and undertake consultation with our commissioning organisations, and suggest prior to methods taught, that they tell us what they want and if the training is for individuals or small numbers of Patients/Service Users, then individual care plans and also include the Patients/Service Users as far as they are able to give consent and/or their family, advocates and senior management so that they completely understand with a view to establishing a consensus on best interests for them.
Ethical Care believes it is necessary to have a very strong and continuous risk assessment into the targeted behaviour and the planned physical Intervention/control & restraint. Methods should make references to individual behaviours as well as general support strategies put in place to reduce the frequency of PI or C&R.
The difficulties that are faced by resources and establishing staff highly trained in all aspects of PI or C&R (including theory) could have far more implications and risk.
We as a Training Provider recognise and offer higher standards to staff, thus increasing their confidence, safety and a consistent service which can improve and encourage respect.
Ethical Care recognise for force to be considered reasonable it must be necessary and proportionate. This is outlined in common law, was the force used necessary (or believed to be necessary) to prevent the crime or affect the arrest? E.G. Was the aggressor presenting a direct threat? Was the threat imminent?
Defensive force will only be considered if the attack is immediate or imminent. We have a duty to avoid conflict. This addresses the question, is the person acting in self defence or acting in revenge or retaliation?
Evidence of an attempt to withdraw or retreat will negate a suggestion of revenge. It would not be considered reasonable to utilise force if the initial aggressor has started to retreat and pose no further threat.
This standard is best defined in terms of what is reasonably proportionate to the amount of harm likely to be suffered if no forcible intervention was made. Proportionate response will be considered with reference to the degree, duration and nature of force used.
"The force used should be no more than what is absolutely necessary to accomplish the object for which it is allowed (so retaliation and punishment are not permitted) and secondly, the reaction must be in proportion to the harm which is threatened".