Professional Ethics and Conduct
Foundations of ethical practice
Ethical conduct in the Kamil framework rests on four pillars: beneficence (acting for the client's good), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), autonomy (respecting informed choice), and justice (fair treatment and equitable access). Candidates must also recognise fidelity (keeping promises and maintaining trust) and integrity (honesty about competence, limits, and conflicts).
Boundaries, conflicts, and disclosure
A recurring theme is the dual relationship: any secondary role that could compromise objectivity must be disclosed, managed, or declined. Confidentiality is the default, but it is not absolute - it yields to legal duty, imminent risk of serious harm, or valid consent. Questions often test whether you can distinguish permissible disclosure from required disclosure.
Common traps
- Choosing the option that protects the professional's reputation rather than the client's welfare.
- Treating a colleague's unethical act as a private matter when reporting duties apply.
- Confusing personal values with professional obligations; the standard is the code, not the candidate's preference.
- Selecting an extreme action (immediate termination, full disclosure to all parties) when a graduated response is correct.
Rule of thumb
When two answers both seem defensible, apply the least-intrusive-effective test: choose the option that resolves the issue with the smallest infringement on autonomy and confidentiality, while still meeting the duty owed. Document the reasoning.
Worked example
A client asks you to keep secret a plan that would seriously endanger a third party. The correct response is not unconditional secrecy (autonomy does not extend to serious harm) nor broadcasting to everyone (over-disclosure). It is: explain the limits of confidentiality in advance, take the minimum step needed to protect the third party, and record what was disclosed and why.