Navigating Ethics and Safety in Public Online Blogging: Implications for Health and Social Care Practice

<Alina Soare>

Potential Ethical Consideration in Public Online Blogging for Health and Social Care Practice

In the fields of health and social care, public internet blogging provides a forum for exchanging professional thoughts, experiences, and knowledge. But technology also raises difficult moral dilemmas that need to be carefully handled. Protecting the privacy and confidentiality of coworkers, service users, and organisations while exchanging material online is a crucial ethical concern.

Strict confidentiality guidelines that are included into professional codes of conduct like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018) and the Health and Care Professions Council is (HCPC) Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics (HCPC, 2016) control the practice of health and social care. These frameworks set forth the ethical and legal need to safeguard service users' personally identifiable information. Because online content is permanent, visible, and easily shared beyond its intended audience, professionals who blog run a higher risk of violating these norms (McGowan et al., 2012).

Contextual information can result in unintentional re-identification even when overt identifiers like names or addresses are eliminated. Someone who is familiar with the case, for instance, might be able to identify the individual involved if it is described with distinctive features, local allusions, or unconventional treatment approaches. This presents serious ethical issues as inadvertent disclosure may cause pain, undermine confidence, or even have negative social or professional effects on service users (Bennett and O'Brien, 2020).

Additionally, blogging causes the lines between one's personal and professional identities to become more hazy. It might be unclear if posts reflect personal beliefs or organisational viewpoints when health and social care professionals publish personal observations or opinions with work experiences (Cain, 2011). Public confidence in the professional and the organisation they represent may be weakened by this, especially if the material is perceived as unprofessional, biased, or critical. Therefore, it is imperative that bloggers include disclaimers and refrain from using any language that might mislead their function or affiliations in order to adhere to ethical standards when describing the goal, audience, and professional scope of their online work.

Consent also becomes a crucial issue. Ideally, a blogger should obtain express informed consent before discussing a service user's situation, even if it is anonymised. Nevertheless, gaining meaningful permission in this situation is morally difficult since service users may not fully comprehend the ramifications of permanent online posting and may feel under pressure to assent because of perceived power disparities (Nissenbaum, 2010). Therefore, unless a case is totally fictionalised or authorised by an appropriate ethics governance procedure, many professional standards advise against discussing particular situations at all (Royal College of Nursing, 2019).

In the end, this ethical concern draws attention to the conflict between the obligation to safeguard vulnerable people and maintain public confidence and the reflecting and educational advantages of online blogging. It emphasises the value of reflexivity, which requires practitioners to evaluate not just what they have in common but also why, how, and for whom. Robust anonymisation, ethical self-auditing, and transparent adherence to professional norms are necessary to guarantee that blogging continues to contribute positively rather than negatively to the practice of health and social care.

Potential Risk Factor / Safety Dilemma in Public Online Blogging for Health and Social Care Practice

Public internet blogging in health and social care presents a number of challenges, including the possibility of disinformation and professional accountability, in addition to privacy and confidentiality issues. The open, sometimes unregulated nature of digital content and the conflict between providing beneficial knowledge and unintentionally spreading false, biassed, or dangerous advice are the causes of this safety conundrum.

Professionals in the fields of health and social care are trusted and have authority. When people post material online, even if it was meant to be a casual remark or personal perspective, readers could take it as professional advice (Ventola, 2014). Readers seeking health-related advice may make dangerous judgements or engage in harmful behaviours if the information is unclear, lacking in proof, or misunderstood (Chretien and Kind, 2013). An example of this would be if a blogger discussed a personal stress-reduction technique and inadvertently encouraged a reader to put off getting help for a severe mental illness.

Professional responsibility and liability are additional layers to this risk element. Health care providers may be held responsible in certain countries for advice given outside of official care settings if it causes harm (George et al., 2013). This is especially complicated in online settings, where a practitioner may not be completely protected by disclaimers if their writing is thought to have caused injury. Even inadvertent violations of professional standards can result in disciplinary proceedings, penalties, or registration loss in regulated professions.

Additionally, writing publicly exposes one to workplace conflict and reputational dangers. Even when not meant as such, a professional's message may be seen as disparaging colleagues, rules, or procedures. Particularly in companies with stringent communications regulations, this may lead to confrontation with bosses or strain at work. According to Cain (2011), some organisations view unapproved internet comments as a violation of their contracts or as damaging their reputation. In order to successfully navigate this environment, one must carefully adhere to corporate policies and, where required, get express permits for communications with the public.

Boundary erosion is an often disregarded safety concern. By encouraging casual conversations outside of conventional care environments, blogging might obfuscate the lines between professional and client relationships. If a practitioner is response might be interpreted as tailored professional advice, service users or their families may use the blog to leave comments, follow, or request advice, posing ethical and legal problems (Brodie et al., 2017). By giving certain people access to the blogger is unofficial advice while others are given normal paths, this compromises safe, equitable treatment and may violate fairness norms.

Last but not least, being visible online poses threats to one's personal safety. When addressing controversial subjects or policy criticisms, bloggers may be subject to abuse, trolling, or targeted complaints (Ventola, 2014). Because digital information is permanent, posts may reappear years later, possibly in a different cultural or professional setting, which might have an impact on credibility or employability.

This risk factor emphasises how crucial it is to communicate responsibly online: information must be factual, supported by evidence, and presented properly to prevent misunderstandings. Professionals should follow workplace and regulatory rules, set clear boundaries, and add disclaimers. By doing this, they safeguard both the public and themselves, making sure that blogging continues to be a safe and beneficial addition to the conversation about health and social care rather than a cause of danger or injury.

References:

Bennett, S., & O’Brien, M. (2020) Confidentiality in the digital age: Challenges for health and social care professionals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(5), 345–351.

Brodie, M., et al. (2017) Ethical boundaries in digital communication: Challenges for modern health care practice. Health Policy, 121(6), 598–604.

Cain, J. (2011) Online social networking issues within academia and pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 75(10), 196.

Chretien, K. C., & Kind, T. (2013) Social media and clinical care: Ethical, professional, and social implications. Circulation, 127(13), 1413–1421.

George, D. R., Rovniak, L. S., Kraschnewski, J. L. (2013) Dangers and opportunities for social media in medicine. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 56(3), 453–462.

HCPC. (2016) Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. London: Health and Care Professions Council.

McGowan, B. S., et al. (2012) Blogging as a health communication tool: Ethical challenges. Health Communication, 27(3), 217–226.

Nissenbaum, H. (2010) Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.

Ventola, C. L. (2014) Social media and health care professionals: Benefits, risks, and best practices. Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 39(7), 491–499.