From June 2001 NASW NEWS
Copyright ©2001, National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

Letters to the Editor

Withholding Welfare

Learning theory seems to support a behavior-consequence model when attempting to extinguish unacceptable behavior. In conjunction with this concept, I am amazed once again by NASW's apparent stance against the implementation of a negative consequence for those who use illegal drugs ["Association Backing Given in Two Cases," April].

The state of Michigan appears to be saying, if you choose to use illegal drugs one of the consequences will be a loss of welfare benefits. I understand and support such logic.

The concept of withholding welfare benefits from those who choose not to comply with societal expectations is not new. Some states will not provide welfare benefits to single parents who will not name the other biologic parent of their children. Others will not provide welfare benefits to the able bodied who refuse to work. Do we as an organization oppose these contingencies as well? Do we believe all individuals are entitled to welfare benefits regardless of behavior?

It would seem that we as an organization often explain maladaptive behavior with a victimization paradigm. I believe we may be in error, however, when we conceptualize victimization as a dichotomous concept, as opposed to envisioning a large continuum.

Human nature would seem to indicate that there are those with whom we work (the victimized and the not-so-victimized) who refuse to choose healthy behavior. They do not seem to respond to "insight"-based interventions designed to lead them to healthy behavior. If we oppose Michigan's approach, what do we as an organization propose as an appropriate intervention strategy for individuals who refuse to act in a healthy way?

Kevin Theriot, Ph.D.
Mesa, Ariz.

The Ashcroft Stand

In the May "Letters" column, Mr. Edward Ruffin writes, "Nothing in my social work education . . . has taught me that the value of a human depends on whether or not she is wanted by her birth parent."

The abortion issue is about the value of women and our respect for their ability to make a responsible decision when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Nothing in my social work education or subsequent 24 years of practice has taught me that we impose our own politics or take away the right of our clients or other human beings to make their own decisions about what is right for their lives.

A woman facing an unwanted pregnancy must be supported in making a choice that makes sense for herself and her family. It is her body, and she is responsible for whatever choice she makes, whether it is to end the pregnancy, carry to term and raise the child or give up the child for adoption.

As a woman, as a feminist and as a social worker, I am very proud that NASW continues to take a strong stand supporting reproductive rights, including the right to choose to have a safe, legal abortion.

Susan Yanow, MSW, LICSW
Cambridge, Mass.

This is in response to Ms. Barrett's and Mr. Ruffin's complaints about NASW's opposition to John Ashcroft's nomination as attorney general ["Letters," May]. Personally, I was pleased.

My greatest objection to Mr. Ashcroft is his thinly veiled racism, among other of his attributes. Ms. Barrett seems to feel that NASW's primary objection is his being "an evangelical Christian and thus a person who believes in moral absolutes." She doesn't bother to indicate whether his "moral absolutes" are necessarily moral. The problem with individuals who hold "moral absolutes" is that they generally insist on rights for themselves that they would not grant to others, especially those who do not hold their narrow views. I know many evangelical Christians who find Ashcroft's positions appalling.

As a committed Christian (Roman Catholic), I also object to Ashcroft's stance on reproductive rights. The choice to have an abortion is between a woman, her God and her physician. To control women's reproduction, including the right to choose an abortion, is to control women. And we have a long, sad, brutal history of controlling women.

If those who oppose a woman's right to choose sought justice for women with the same ferocity that they do on behalf of the fetus, they might actually reduce if not end abortions. But that would take more effort than brutualizing a woman who chooses to end her pregnancy.

Michael P. Melendez
Boston, Mass.

Monitoring Care

Survey — this one word can strike fear into the hearts and minds of even the most seasoned nursing home employee. One day, out of the blue you will see them. They come in ones and twos in several cars. As we watch them walk in, our hearts start beating faster, our thoughts become a jumble, our tongues are tied, we can not get a coherent sentence out of our mouths. This year, nine members of the survey team entered our facility; seven stayed seven days!

The idea should be to ensure safe, appropriate care for the elderly in the state of Wisconsin. The reality is the survey team is impeding the ability of staff to provide care to residents. They take nursing staff off the floor for hours at a time to ask the same questions over and over. The idea is that the survey team will support residents' rights and residents' privacy and act as professionals. The reality is, residents and family are being intimidated by team members. Resident rights need to be maintained. We need to stand up for the rights of residents.

Yes, every facility needs to be monitored, but the process needs to be revised. The survey team needs to watch and listen and make sure that residents get good care. If they are truly here to observe, then they need to do just that. There is no need to take nurses off the floor for hours at a time when they should be attending to resident care. Residents do not need to be watched from two feet away. One of the survey team sat so close to watch a resident eat during mealtime, he refused to eat. Survey members should be observing from a distance, they should not interrupt the normal flow of care.

The survey process in the state of Wisconsin has deteriorated. The initiation of a mechanism to monitor nursing home care was supported by public opinion. The changes that now need to be made can also be impacted by public opinion. We need to put our collective heads together to find a better way to monitor nursing homes.

Nancy Tischbein
Park Falls, Wis.

Workplace Thoughts

As a social worker with close to 20 years' experience, I really responded to the thoughts expressed by Ruth Mayden ["Mayden Recommends Workplace Improvements," March].

Salaries remain minimal, the "acuity" of our clientele is higher, the validity of the work itself is acknowledged minimally, if at all, and many roles that traditionally might have fallen within the scope of social work are being relegated to other disciplines (discharge planning and case management in many hospitals and health care organizations done by those with degrees in nursing).

Public agencies with often very difficult work environments and ridiculously low salaries continue to try to recruit qualified social workers, who are given little support or status but are frequently typified as undereducated and naive do-gooders with more bleeding heart than common sense. Clearly, these issues need to be addressed on multiple fronts by more than social workers.

Ann Holzer
Richmond, Ind.

Letters Policy

Letters are published as space permits and may be edited for clarity and length. Submissions may not necessarily be published or responded to; receipt is not acknowledged. Unsigned letters, form letters and ccs to third parties are not published. Mail to: Managing Editor, NASW News, 750 First St., N.E., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002. E-mail — plain (ASCII) text only — to: naswnews@naswdc.org

Back to NASW NEWS Contents