There is this big big ethical issue in social work which advocates self-determination except for situations of self harm, harm to others, or with legal consequences. After defining the limits to self-determination, we'd probably ask how do we define what self harm and harm to others is right? it's easy to tell the legal boundaries where provisions for self-determination can be made, but it's never a clear-cut case for self-harm and harm to others. Does self harm only entail actions that put the person's life in danger, or actions that has significant impact on a person's quality of life? think about a homeless person, assuming the low-crime record Singapore has is accurate enough, living on the streets probably wouldn't put one's life into much danger i guess. But with the lack of privacy or even a simple resting place where one can be totally away from the public eye, where one can feel fully secured, how can we say that it's not self-harm? i don't know about others, but my definition of self-harm does, and definitely includes significant impact on a person's quality of live. And while Singapore gets 1st in so many things, i'm pretty sure our society is able to provide a reasonable QOL for it's people. And yet, there are people homeless, some not because they deserve it, but because they refuse to accept help be it from the maintenance of parent's act or other services. Hence with adequate resources to aid, do we want to overlook the self-determination of our clients at times when we clearly see that they are harming themselves or others. But I guess the problem comes when people define the notion of self-harm or harm to others differently. I am not a good social work student, hence i wouldn't be able to tell you if any social work agencies have actually defined the notion of what the word 'harm' actually entails. But without a common definition, expectations differ and that's usually the main reason for conflict isn't it?