A safeguarding ethics question:
If a professional working in safeguarding, education, health, or social care receives a written report from a third party stating that an adult has been repeatedly observed using binoculars to watch young girls,
and the information is credible, specific, and pattern-based —
what is the ethical responsibility of that professional?
Is it ethical to:
- Delay action due to lack of “proof”?
- Reframe the behaviour as harmless or eccentric?
- Keep the information private because the individual is known or related?
Or does ethical practice require:
- Immediate recording and escalation,
- Referral to appropriate safeguarding and statutory agencies,
- Prioritising potential child safety over personal, familial, or reputational discomfort?
At what point does professional silence become ethical failure?
Ethical Lens (Psychology & Neuroscience)
From an ethics perspective, safeguarding relies on precaution, not certainty.
Neuroscience shows that when safeguarding information threatens:
- personal identity,
- family loyalty,
- professional reputation,
the brain’s threat system (amygdala) can override ethical reasoning (prefrontal cortex), leading to minimisation, delay, or inaction.
Ethical practice requires recognising this bias — and acting despite it.
Reflection Question
Safeguarding is not tested when it is easy or impersonal.
It is tested when it is close, uncomfortable, and costly.
If we only act when there is certainty, who absorbs the risk in the meantime — the professional, or the child?
