| Course | MSW 547 Equity, Justice, and Global Perspectives |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Duty conflict write-up |
| Length | About 540 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 547 Week 4
Duty Conflict Write-Up on W., 84, Who Refuses to Leave a House Without Heat in January: Self-Determination and Protection Both Still Standing, the Defeater Named as a Category, a One-Sentence Verdict, the Reversal Check and What the Losing Duty Is Still Owed
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 547: Equity, Justice, and Global Perspectives
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Duty Conflict Write-Up on W., 84, Who Refuses to Leave a House Without Heat in January: Self-Determination and Protection Both Still Standing, the Defeater Named as a Category, a One-Sentence Verdict, the Reversal Check and What the Losing Duty Is Still Owed
Two Duties, Both Still Standing
W., 84, lives alone in a farmhouse whose furnace failed on January 6. W. uses two electric space heaters in the kitchen and sleeps on the couch there. W. refuses to go to a daughter's home or a shelter: "I was born in this house and I'll stay in it." Self-determination is a strong duty here; the Code says workers "respect and promote the right of clients to self-determination" (National Association of Social Workers, 2021, Standard 1.02). Protection is strong too. Older adults in cold homes face real risk of hypothermia, and W. has heart failure.
The Defeater, Named as a Category
What is allowed to decide this: whether W. has decision-making capacity for this specific choice, and whether the risk is serious, foreseeable and imminent. The second part comes from the Code's own limit on self-determination in Standard 1.02. Capacity is assessed for a decision, not for a person, using understanding, appreciation, reasoning and expressing a choice (Appelbaum, 2007).
Applying It
On January 8, W. explained the risk of cold, named the heaters as the plan, compared the farmhouse with the daughter's home and chose consistently over two visits. W. appreciated that the furnace might not be fixed for ten days. The kitchen read 64°F at noon. Risk is serious but, with the heaters working, not imminent.
The Verdict
Self-determination holds: W. stays home, and protection yields for now.
The verdict is for now, not for the winter. It is reviewed on every call, and the threshold below is what would reverse it.
The Reversal Check
Would the same category have decided for protection if the facts were different? Yes. If W. could not explain the risk, or the kitchen fell below 60°F, the category would point the other way and I would contact Adult Protective Services the same day. The category does not secretly favor the winner; it would have chosen protection on other facts.
Who Carries the Cost
W. carries most of it: a cold house, a couch for a bed. The daughter carries worry and two drives a day. I carry the risk of being wrong, which I share with my supervisor, who agreed on January 8.
What the Loser Is Still Owed
Protection did not vanish. It is owed two calls a day, one early in the morning and one at suppertime; a thermometer W. reads aloud on each call; an emergency application for the state's heating assistance program, submitted January 8; a carbon monoxide detector installed by the fire department; and the threshold above, written into the file so a covering worker can act on it.
References
Appelbaum, P. S. (2007). Assessment of patients' competence to consent to treatment. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(18), 1834-1840. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp074045
National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
Reading the MSW 547 Week 4 instructions
The duty conflict write-up resolves a real conflict between two commitments. Show both at full strength first, each grounded in a citable standard. Before deciding, name in general terms the kind of consideration allowed to decide: severity, irreversibility, capacity, imminence or whether someone else could act. Apply it to dated facts. State the verdict in one sentence near the front of the decision. Then run the reversal check: turn the same category on the winning side and report whether it would have chosen differently on other facts. Say who carries the cost. Close by listing what the losing duty is still owed, so nothing remains unprotected. Date every observation you rely on.
Inside the MSW 547 Week 4 example
The duties section describes W., the failed furnace, the space heaters and W.'s refusal, and cites Standard 1.02 and the risk of cold for someone with heart failure. The defeater section names capacity for this decision and serious, foreseeable and imminent risk, citing Appelbaum (2007). The application section uses two visits and a 64°F reading. The verdict keeps W. at home for now and is reviewed on every call. The reversal section shows the same category would have chosen protection if W. could not explain the risk or the kitchen fell below 60°F. The cost section names W., the daughter and the worker. The final section lists daily calls, a heating assistance application and a carbon monoxide detector.
MSW 547 Week 4 rubric: what full points look like
Graders look for a defeater named before it is used and then turned around. A write-up in which one duty arrives already weak loses the most. Credit goes to both duties grounded in sources, a category stated in general terms, application to dated facts, a one-sentence verdict, a reversal check reported honestly, a cost with someone carrying it and a list of what the loser is still owed. Recommendations phrased as suggestions someone could decline lose marks; the verdict should be a decision. Sources should be cited in APA. Thresholds that a covering worker could act on, written into the file, earn additional credit.
Common MSW 547 Week 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Write-ups most often lose points by deciding first and naming the reason afterward. Another common gap is a reversal check skipped or done only in the writer's head. Some papers write the losing duty off entirely, which leaves the person exposed. Others state the cost without saying who bears it. If your case involves possible incapacity, describe how capacity was assessed for this decision rather than in general. A write-up that leaves the losing duty with specific, dated tasks shows that resolving a conflict does not mean abandoning one side of it. Write the threshold that would reverse the verdict in numbers a covering worker could check by phone.
Get a MSW-547 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Send the case your section supplied, the required length, and the template if there is one. A custom Week 4 write-up is written to that case and comes back inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. If your classroom wants a particular ethical approach named, say which, since the defeater section changes shape depending on it.
More MSW 547 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 547 Week 1: Who Owed the Interpreter Post
- MSW 547 Week 2: Obligation Analysis of Client Primacy
- MSW 547 Week 3: Right to Housing Framework Paper
- MSW 547 Week 5: Code of Ethics Application
- MSW 547 Week 6: Distributive Justice Write-up
- MSW 547 Week 7: Justice Argument Paper
- MSW 547 Week 8: Applied Ethics Synthesis
- MSW 548 Week 4: Benefit Adequacy Write-up
- MSW 546 Week 4: Practice Effectiveness Memo
- MSW 549 Week 4: Wealth Gap Write-up
- MSW 545 Week 4: Task Assignment Write-Up
MSW 547 Week 4 questions, answered
Can both commitments come from the same code?
They usually do, and the paper is stronger for it. A collision between two standards a single body wrote is harder to dismiss as a clash of worldviews, and it forces the writer to argue about ordering rather than about which document to believe. Cite both by their numbers and resist reading one of them down until it stops competing.
Does the decision have to be the one I would actually make?
It has to be one you could defend if pressed in the discussion afterward, which is not quite the same thing. Writers often reach a verdict on paper they suspect they would fail to carry out, and saying so in a sentence is legitimate. The version earning nothing is a verdict the writer plainly does not hold, adopted because it looked safer to argue.
What if the case has a third party with a claim?
Bring them in, but keep the collision binary in the argument. Three duties in play at once tends to produce a paper ranking nothing, because every pairing gets a paragraph and none gets a verdict. Name the third claim, give the reason it settles nothing here, and set it aside in writing rather than by omission.
Where can I find a free MSW 547 Week 4 sample paper?
Read the full MSW 547 Week 4 write-up resolving self-determination against protection for an 84-year-old in a cold farmhouse here.
What is protection still owed in the MSW 547 Week 4 sample?
Calls at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. with a thermometer reading, an emergency heating assistance application, a carbon monoxide detector and a written threshold for contacting Adult Protective Services.