Reflections on the implications of proposed legal reform in Israel on ethical dilemmas in social work

The Code of Ethics of the Union of Social Workers in Israel reflects the values of the profession and sets the standards for evaluating the activities carried out by social workers in Israel (Code of Ethics of the Union of Social Workers, 2018). According to the Code of Ethics, social workers in Israel should “strive for social justice for the benefit of disadvantaged or discriminated individuals and groups […] and act against policies that create or maintain situations of discrimination in all its aspects, initiate and promote legislation in the spirit of human rights, egalitarianism and benefit” (Code of Ethics of the Union of Social Workers, 2018, page 10).

Moreover, social workers are obligated to act to “promote the welfare of society through policies and legislation aimed at improving social conditions and promoting social justice, and will act to realize them” (The Code of Ethics of the Union of Social Workers, 2018, Chapter 2, Article 2), as well as to promote “conditions that encourage respect and equality toward the variety of cultures of which Israeli society is composed” (The Code of Ethics of the Association of Social Workers, 2018 Chapter 2, Section 2). In a similar vein, the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) has a set of principles for social justice, the promotion of human rights, as well as the obligation to act when policies harm or oppress the clients of social workers (Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles, 2018).

According to the Social Workers Law, 5756-1996 in Israel, social workers should “promote the welfare of the individual and society in Israel while maintaining human dignity and equality.” A fundamental principle of human dignity is the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty 5752-1992, which is the law which has constitutional status, as well as the rights which are included in it (Barak, 2014). According to section 2 of the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty: “One should not violate the life, body, or dignity of a human being as such.” while section 4 of the law states that: “Every human being is entitled to protection of his life, body and dignity.” In other words, the Israeli legislature recognizes professional values as social values enshrined in the Social Workers Law, 5756-1996.

As a result, social workers' obligations in Israel are derived from the Code of Ethics, the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty 5752-1992, and the Social Workers Law 5756-1996, all of which are designed to assist them in dealing with ethical dilemmas on a daily basis.

Reform of the Israeli legal system

Section 8 of the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty 5752-1992 states that: One is not to violate the rights accorded by this Basic Law save by means of a law that corresponds to the values of the State of Israel, which serves an appropriate purpose, and to an extent that does not exceed what is required, or on the basis of a law, as aforementioned, by force of an explicit authorization therein.

It is possible for the Israeli Supreme Court to invalidate a law that violates section 8 of the Basic Law when it is enacted in Israel and a petition is filed against its legality. If the law violates the Basic Law's rights, the Supreme Court may invalidate it or specific sections thereof. As a result, section 8 is defined as a superseding clause (Barak, 2014).

For instance, in 2007, there was a breach of the Israel-Egypt border by Sudanese and Eritrean refugees who entered Israel illegally. Because of the growing number of people entering into the country illegally, the State was unable to deal with them in a timely manner, so it amended the Prevention of Entry Law (Offenses and Jurisdiction), 5714-1954 to allow the State to hold the refugees who had entered illegally in a detention facility for up to 1 year.

In 2014, five refugees who entered illegally and five civil-rights organizations in Israel petitioned the Israeli High Court of Justice to invalidate the section of the Prevention of Entry Law that allowed holding in a detention facility for up to a year (The Law for the Prevention of Entry (Crimes and Judging), 1954-1954, on the grounds that the section violates basic human rights and is inconsistent with the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty 5752-1992 (HCJ 7385/13 Gebrselassie and others against the Israeli government and others, published in Nevo, 22.9.14). The Israeli High Court of Justice accepted the petition on the grounds that depriving refugees who entered illegally of their rights for a long period of time is inconsistent with Article 8 of the Basic Law and the protection of human rights of disadvantaged populations and thus rejected the legal article.

Another example is that of social workers who, following the Israeli Code of Ethics and the Social Workers Law, 5756-1996, petition the Supreme Court for social justice and equality for their clients. Thus, the Union of Social Workers petitioned the Israeli High Court of Justice against the Israel Electric Corporation. In this case, the Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) cut off electricity to social workers' clients who lived in poverty and were not able to pay their electric bills (HCJ 4988/19 Moissa and Harimv against Israel Electric Corporation (Nevo, 20.1.22). The union claimed that the standards of the electric company for disconnecting debtors were too stringent. The High Court accepted the plea partially and stated that those who prove a substantial financial hardship shall not be cut off from electrical supply.

As part of the planned legal reform in Israel, a bill has been submitted by Israel's current Minister of Justice, stating that even if the Supreme Court rules that a law enacted by the Knesset violates rights under the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty (1992), a Knesset majority vote would be able to overrule the High Court's decision (Basic Law: Overcoming, P/87/25).

Israel has, for a long period of time, experienced religious, cultural, and political divisions that provide additional ethical challenges, as in other countries where there are deep-seated conflicts (Baum, 2006; Ramon et al., 2006). Thus, social workers in Israel must navigate these issues in a way that respects the beliefs of the diverse religious, cultural, and political groups while taking into account the ethical obligations of the profession. Therefore, even if the bill has not yet been formulated into law, if it is passed, social workers may face complex ethical and legal dilemmas where a social worker's actions or interventions will be incompatible with their own interpretation of the Social Workers Law 5756-1996 (ss. 192), the Code of Ethics of the Union of Social Workers and the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) and their perceived responsibility toward individuals and society. As a result, social workers may find themselves in a dilemma when it comes to the fact that sovereign decisions made by the legislative branch of government can compromise the human and legal rights of the clients of social workers.

For example, returning to the case cited here where the High Court of Justice ruled that the State's holding refugees who entered illegally in detention was a violation of their human rights. If the currently proposed bill is formulated into law, the legislative branch (the Knesset) could nullify the High Court ruling and allow the State to continue holding such refugees who entered the country illegally in detention facilities. Assuming that a social worker provides services to a person who must remain in the detention facility under the new law, should the social worker report this person to Israel's enforcement authorities? Can he/she help him evade law enforcement and break the law?

On one hand, the Code of Ethics of the Union of Social Workers (2018) states that: “The social workers will be aware of complex situations, including influences and pressures that may impair their professional judgment, and will act to make autonomous professional decisions while adhering to the rules of law and professional ethics as they are accompanied by professional counseling and training” (Chapter 1, Article 12). Similarly, IFSW states that the social worker must act in accordance with the laws of his or her country and decisions should always be made by “empirical evidence; practical wisdom; and ethical, legal and cultural considerations” (Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles, 2018, Section 9.7).

However, according to the Code of Ethics of the Union of Social Workers and IFSW, social workers have an obligation to achieve social justice and the promotion of human rights, as well as to act when policies harm or oppress the clients of social workers (Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles, 2018; The Code of Ethics of the Union of Social Workers Code of Ethics, 2018, page 10).

Moreover, if the social workers and detainees are in violation of the law, they may face criminal charges or civil lawsuits for acting outside their legal obligations. This is similar to the situation surrounding women's right to abortion in certain states in the United States and the conundrum in which a social worker may find him/herself. In states where the State's legislative branch has ruled that abortion is a criminal offense, a social worker who aids a pregnant woman in obtaining an abortion could be prosecuted in criminal and civil lawsuits (Reamer, 2023).

This type of situation creates several ethical dilemmas for social workers: (1) Dilemma between the law and professional values—the law contradicts the principle of social justice and is contrary to the code of ethics of social work. Social workers may feel that the law forces them to betray the values to which they are committed; (2) Dilemma involving the client—social workers need to balance their desire to assist clients and their personal distress, despite the constraints of the law. They may find themselves obligated to two conflicting sides; and (3) Organizational dilemma—if a social worker chooses an action that contradicts the law, he or she risks their professional standing in the organization. In contrast, inaction may harm clients.

As a result, I would like to provide a number of recommendations that may help social workers prepare themselves to deal with situations where they are forced to act in a way that is contrary to both applicable legislation as well as the professional code of ethics. Although there are diverse models in the literature for solving ethical dilemmas in social work (Congtess, 2000; Hodgson & Watts, 2016; Reamer, 2018), I believe that social workers need to prepare for ethical dilemmas in advance and with an eye on the pitfalls that may exist in their own country.

Preliminary recommendations for policy and practice

According to the Code of Ethics of the Association of Social Workers in Israel, social workers are obligated to advocate for policy change (Code of Ethics of the Association of Social Workers, 2018, chapter 2, section 1-2, Reamer, 2018). Therefore, the first recommendation is that the social worker examine whether a policy has been formulated in their workplace that forces them, in certain situations, to act in violation of the legal framework relevant to their daily practice. In the event that such a policy has been formulated and it contradicts the social workers' professional values and personal goals, the social worker should seek to change the policy or review their own continued employment in the organization. This issue should be brought to the attention of the organization's director if the organization has no clear policy on this issue. The social workers should do everything in their power to ensure that the organization formulates, in partnership with its employees, a clear policy and guidelines on how social workers should act when dealing with illegal actions.

As a second recommendation, individuals should contact their workplace's legal counsel for advice regarding the legal implications of social workers acting in accordance with laws and ethical codes to assist their clients (Barsky, 2022; Reamer, 2023). Specifically, can such an act lead to a negligence claim against the social worker, or even to the filing of criminal charges against the social worker? Perhaps the independent social workers should seek legal advice from a private attorney; it is possible that some of the costs of legal advice may be covered by their professional liability insurance.

The third recommendation is to contact the Ethics Committee of the Association of Social Workers in Israel and inquire about its principled approach to this matter (Ethics Committee, n.d.). As illegal actions of social workers may be the subject of a complaint to the Ethics Committee, as well as in certain cases a complaint to the Disciplinary Committee, in accordance with section 54 of the Social Workers Law, 5756-1996 (ss. 192), a social worker's license may be suspended for a specified period or permanently.

Finally, it is important to note that social workers often work in complex organizations that lack resources, interact with vulnerable and disadvantaged populations, and are forced to balance various values, laws, demands, and interests in sensitive ways (Linzer et al., 2003; Reamer, 2018). In the event that the currently proposed bill becomes law, social workers will have to deal with complex ethical and legal dilemmas. The commitment of social workers in Israel to safeguard the basic rights of their clients, to lead social struggles, and to strive for policy changes that violate the basic human rights of their clients, can lead them into complex situations where they need to act contrary to the legislation, which can place them in dangerous situations.

Should social workers be required to perform their duties in a manner that is not consistent with the roles and responsibilities they have toward individuals and society, it is unjust to impose a burden on them. Consequently, it is appropriate for social workers to outline in advance their approach to tackling these complex dilemmas in advance of encountering situations that could lead to violations of laws on their part and to the filing of criminal and civil lawsuits against them in the future.