Theoretical Engagement: Ethical and Safety Issues in Online Blogging for Health and Social Care

<Lorena Burlacu>

The growth of online platforms has created opportunities for health and social care professionals to share experiences, insights, and reflections. Public blogging offers possibilities for professional learning, peer support, and wider public engagement. However, it also raises complex ethical and safety issues that require careful consideration. This post will examine two key aspects: firstly, the ethical challenge of maintaining confidentiality and consent when discussing service users in blogs; and secondly, the risk of professional responsibility and misinformation in online communication. The discussion will be supported by relevant literature and professional frameworks.

Ethical consideration:

Confidentiality and consent in online blogging

Confidentiality is a fundamental principle within health and social care practice, enshrined in both legal and ethical frameworks. Regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018) and the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC, 2016) Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics emphasize the duty of professionals to protect personal data and maintain trust. These obligations are central to safeguarding the dignity and privacy of service users.

In the context of blogging, confidentiality becomes more difficult to maintain because online content is permanent, easily shared, and widely accessible. Even when names and direct identifiers are removed, the risk of re-identification remains significant. For example, contextual details such as unusual treatments, geographical references, or unique personal traits may enable others to deduce the identity of the individual concerned (Bennett & O'Brien, 2020). Such breaches can cause emotional harm, undermine trust in services, and damage the professional reputation of the blogger.

Another ethical dimension is the blurring of personal and professional boundaries. As Cain (2011) observes, it may be unclear whether a blog post represents a professional perspective or a personal opinion. Ambiguity of this nature can weaken public trust both in the individual professional and in the organization they represent. Consequently, the inclusion of disclaimers and explicit clarification of purpose is recommended to prevent misinterpretation of the author's role or authority.

Consent represents an additional ethical concern. In principle, professionals should obtain informed consent before sharing service users' experiences. However, this is ethically problematic in the online environment. Service users may not fully appreciate the permanence or reach of digital content, and power imbalances in professional relationships can create a sense of pressure to agree (Nissenbaum, 2010). As a result, consent may not be freely or meaningfully given. Professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Nursing (2019), therefore advise against sharing identifiable case details unless fictionalized or authorized through formal governance procedures.

These challenges highlight the importance of reflexivity in online practice. Reflexivity requires practitioners to evaluate not only what information is shared, but also why and for whose benefit. Ethical blogging should prioritize anonymisation, transparency, and adherence to professional codes. By adopting a reflective approach, practitioners can ensure that online contributions enrich professional dialogue while safeguarding the rights and dignity of service users.

In conclusion, confidentiality and consent are central to the ethical use of online platforms by health and social care professionals. The risks of re-identification, unclear professional boundaries, and compromised consent necessitate strong safeguards. By following regulatory frameworks and engaging reflexively, practitioners can navigate these challenges responsibly.

Risk Factor: Professional Responsibility and Misinformation in Online Blogs

Along with ethical concerns, the issue of professional responsibility and misinformation is a significant risk factor in online blogs. Health and social care professionals occupy positions of trust, and their statements, even in informal settings, can be perceived by the public as authoritative advice. Ventola (2014) notes that online reflections, intended as personal observations, are often interpreted as professional recommendations. This misinterpretation creates the potential for unsafe behaviors and decisions among readers.

For example, a blogger describing personal stress management strategies may unintentionally encourage a reader with severe mental illness to delay seeking professional care. Chretien and Kind (2013) argue that ambiguous or anecdotal advice can mislead individuals into adopting harmful practices. Such results illustrate the responsibility that professionals have when communicating in public digital spaces.

Professional liability further intensifies this risk. In some jurisdictions, health and social care professionals may face legal consequences if their online advice results in harm, even when disclaimers are included (George et al., 2013). Disciplinary action may also arise for breaches of professional standards, which may result in sanctions or loss of registration. These risks highlight the need for practitioners to be cautious and align their online communication with professional codes of conduct.

Misinformation also has implications for organizational reputation. Cain (2011) notes that some employers view unapproved online comments as damaging to their image. Posts perceived as unprofessional, biased or critical can lead to workplace conflict or disciplinary action. This suggests that organizational communication policies should be followed when working with online writing.

Another risk relates to professional boundaries. Blogging can encourage informal interactions with service users or their families through comments or direct messages. Brodie et al. (2017) identify this as a form of boundary erosion, where casual engagement is mistaken for personalised advice. Unequal access to informal guidance can also compromise fairness, contradicting principles of equity in service provision.

In addition, online visibility exposes professionals to concerns about personal safety. Those who address controversial topics or criticize policies may be subject to harassment, trolling or targeted complaints (Ventola, 2014). Furthermore, the permanence of digital content means that posts can resurface years later in new contexts, potentially damaging career opportunities and professional credibility.

To mitigate these risks, professionals should adopt strategies that include:

• Ensuring that content is evidence-based and accurate.

• Using disclaimers to make it clear that the material is not a substitute for professional advice.

• Adhering to workplace and regulatory communication policies.

• Maintaining clear boundaries in online interactions.

In conclusion, misinformation and professional liability present significant safety dilemmas in health and social care blogs. While online platforms can contribute positively to professional dialogue and public education, they also pose risks to both practitioners and service users. Therefore, responsible, evidence-based communication that adheres to ethical and organizational standards is essential to support safe practice.

Conclusion

The discussion examined two central issues in health and social care blogs: the ethical concern of confidentiality and consent, and the safety risk of misinformation and professional liability. Both considerations demonstrate that online communication, while valuable, presents complex challenges that require caution, reflexivity, and adherence to professional codes. By critically engaging with these issues, health and social care professionals can ensure that their online contributions enhance professional practice without compromising the safety or dignity of those they serve.

References

• Bennett, C. & O’Brien, D. (2020). The Risks of Re-identification in Health Data. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(5), pp. 289–294.

• Brodie, M., Flournoy, R. & Altman, D. (2017). Boundaries in Online Professional-Client Interactions. Social Work in Health Care, 56(3), pp. 215–230.

• Cain, J. (2011). Online social networking issues within academia and pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 75(10), pp. 207–213.

• Chretien, K. C. & Kind, T. (2013). Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical and Professional Implications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(6), pp. 591–592.

• Department of Health and Social Care (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). London: HMSO.

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

• HCPC (2016). Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. Health and Care Professions Council.

• Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press.

• Royal College of Nursing (2019). RCN Guidance on Social Media Use. London: RCN.

• Ventola, C. L. (2014). Social Media and Health Care Professionals: Benefits, Risks, and Best Practices. P&T Journal, 39(7), pp. 491–520.