Social workers!

[Kendall K. Down]

Aka the malign brain dead who infest society.

At the prayer meeting last night one couple asked for prayers for their
neighbour, who was out looking for his wife (as were the police and
sundry others). The poor woman has dementia and the husband has been
having a terrible time of it as her personality has completely changed.

Anyway, he has been keeping the doors locked to prevent her straying,
but recently received a visit from a "mental health worker" who was
horrified. "You can't do that! You are denying her her personal liberty!"

So the husband, under threat of sanctions if he continued to deny the
woman her liberty, reluctantly left the door unlocked, with the result
that his wife slipped out and went missing. The first time he noticed
almost at once and was able to spot her wandering down the end of the
street and go and fetch her. This time he didn't notice and has no idea
how long she has been gone.

Of course what the mental health worker ("mental" is probably a fit
adjective for this interfering moron) wants - probably gets a commission
for every patient - is for the wife to be put in a home and guess what?
I have been in old folks' homes that specialise in dementia and you
can't get in or out without a member of staff unlocking the door! Even
the windows have locks on them.

And some of you wonder why I am so disparaging of social workers as a class!

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Timreason]

Yes, I was once a Support Worker for people with mental health issues
and/or learning difficulties. I hasten to add, we were nothing to do
with Social Services, we worked for a non-profit charitable trust.

We supported people in the community who needed help with their daily
living and accessing the community. We often saw Social Services and
their petty rules and regulations as 'The Enemy'!

One example: One fellow with cerebral palsy, who always wanted to keep
himself immaculately clean, couldn't bath himself properly. I (and our
manager at the time) got slated by the SS for providing a temporary bath
seat as a solution whilst we were waiting for the SS wheels to slowly
turn in order to get proper bath adaptions funded and then installed.

Remember, the poor fellow *couldn't wash*, yet we were slated for all
the bureaucratic reasons they could chuck at us. "Proper risk
assessments" etc., etc.

Maybe we should have insisted the Social Worker couldn't wash until our
Service User's needs were properly met!

Tim.

[steve hague]

On 18/08/2021 08:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:

I'm not. It's one of those jobs where you're damned if you do, and
you're damned if you don't. They have to make decisions which may affect
peoples lives, and they have to make these decisions based on their
training, their experience and what they're told by their superiors and
their clients, who may be habitual and convincing liars. The "personal
liberty" thing is a massive problem though. It means that people who may
be likely to do harm to themselves and others can do so. The social
worker who doesn't follow the rules (not guidlines, rules) will soon
find themselves out of a job. The social workers I've known have been
caring, compassionate people who were frustrated by the system they
worked under.
Steve Hague

[Kendall K. Down]

On 18/08/2021 09:15, Timreason wrote:

> Maybe we should have insisted the Social Worker couldn't wash until our
> Service User's needs were properly met!

If only!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 18/08/2021 10:36, steve hague wrote:

> I'm not. It's one of those jobs where you're damned if you do, and
> you're damned if you don't. They have to make decisions which may affect
> peoples lives, and they have to make these decisions based on their
> training, their experience and what they're told by their superiors and
> their clients, who may be habitual and convincing liars. The "personal
> liberty" thing is a massive problem though. It means that people who may
> be likely to do harm to themselves and others can do so. The social
> worker who doesn't follow the rules (not guidlines, rules) will soon
> find themselves out of a job. The social workers I've known have been
> caring, compassionate people who were frustrated by the system they
> worked under.

Quite. However you still don't have to be egregiously stupid, as the
example I quoted was.

[Jason]

I've not much to add to what Steve has said, but that's been my
(admittedly limited) experience too.

I've never heard of the "personal liberty" thing you mentioned and is at
the centre of this specific case: is this actually a policy?? If it is a
general policy and is simply applied to any-and-all situations without
thought I'd completely agree with you, it sounds *very* problematic.
Isn't every there supposed to be a customised "care plan" tailored for
every individual? Simply leaving doors unlocked at all times and so on
when for their own protection a different approach would benefit them
seems all but negligent to me.

If it is a policy, I can imagine it is one of the 'pendulum' ones which
swings back and forth over the years. At the other extreme, you could
imagine more capable people being locked in their rooms for 23 hours a
day which no choice about what they do or where they go.

But surely care should be tailored to the needs, and if someone is prone
to wander off and get lost or hurt themselves this should surely be taken
into account.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/08/2021 18:29, Jason wrote:

> I've never heard of the "personal liberty" thing you mentioned and is at
> the centre of this specific case: is this actually a policy??

I have no idea. I suspect that it is the particular social worker's bee
in the bonnet.

> If it is a
> general policy and is simply applied to any-and-all situations without
> thought I'd completely agree with you, it sounds *very* problematic.
> Isn't every there supposed to be a customised "care plan" tailored for
> every individual? Simply leaving doors unlocked at all times and so on
> when for their own protection a different approach would benefit them
> seems all but negligent to me.

Common sense is, unfortunately, notable by its rarity.

> But surely care should be tailored to the needs, and if someone is prone
> to wander off and get lost or hurt themselves this should surely be taken
> into account.

I do so agree.

[Timreason]

On 19/08/2021 18:29, Jason wrote:

>

> I've never heard of the "personal liberty" thing...

It exists, it is about protecting people from controlling or abusive
behaviour by others. It does have to be considered, but it's all about
striking a balance. When I was a Community Support Worker (working for a
charitable trust) it was unfortunately not uncommon to be told we
couldn't do something, even though it was very clearly in the person's
interest, because that could be seen as 'An infringement on their rights
of free choice'. Consequently, it was sometimes necessary to 'Bend the
rules' a bit, (always in the person's interest), in order to best help
and support them.

More commonly, it was red tape and procedures that got in the way, as
per the example I gave to Kendall of the fellow who couldn't wash
himself until risk assessments, funding applications, etc., etc., had
all been put in place, despite the fact that our manager happened to
have a bath seat (from his late mother) that could solve the immediate
need.

My own view? Telling the fellow he couldn't wash was abuse and an
infringement of his rights and personal liberty!

Tim.

[steve hague]

On 19/08/2021 20:40, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 19/08/2021 18:29, Jason wrote:
>
>> I've never heard of the "personal liberty" thing you mentioned and is at
>> the centre of this specific case: is this actually a policy??

I'm talking about people with autism, but it is policy here in Cornwall.
If service users are mentally and physically capable of doing their own
shopping, then keeping them from doing so is called false imprisonment.
It doesn't seem to matter that one of them will go into Tesco, have a
look in the freezer section, pull out a tub of rasperry ice cream, stick
his finger in it, taste it and put it back, wanting strawberry flavour
instead. He would't have been careful about his personal hygeine. The
places who care for these people get a lot of flack, but they have to do
the best they can within the restrictions and rules. It's a vocation for
some of the staff, a job they'll soon leave for most others.
Steve Hague

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/08/2021 10:03, steve hague wrote:

> I'm talking about people with autism, but it is policy here in Cornwall.
> If service users are mentally and physically capable of doing their own
> shopping, then keeping them from doing so is called false imprisonment.
> It doesn't seem to matter that one of them will go into Tesco, have a
> look in the freezer section, pull out a tub of rasperry ice cream, stick
> his finger in it, taste it and put it back, wanting strawberry flavour
> instead.

Which seems to me prima facie evidence that he is NOT mentally capable
of doing his own shopping!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/08/2021 08:27, Timreason wrote:

> My own view? Telling the fellow he couldn't wash was abuse and an
> infringement of his rights and personal liberty!

I agree - but then, you and I are rational and intelligent human beings;
we are not bureaucrats (who are neither rational, intelligent nor human).

[Mike Davis]

Now you are just being silly!
(Neither rational, intelligent nor human!)

;-)


Mike
--
Mike Davis

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Jason]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 13:36:16 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 20/08/2021 21:17, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> On 20/08/2021 08:27, Timreason wrote:
>>
>>> My own view? Telling the fellow he couldn't wash was abuse and an
>>> infringement of his rights and personal liberty!
>>
>> I agree - but then, you and I are rational and intelligent human
>> beings; we are not bureaucrats (who are neither rational, intelligent
>> nor human).
>
> Now you are just being silly!
> (Neither rational, intelligent nor human!)
>
> ;-)

I agree with all of the above. The problem I guess is that like in any
field, there are some bad practices in some places and some good
practices in others. You can see why there would be a desire to foster a
standard approach, which of necessity means following defined procedures
and processes. The problem is that to cover all needs of all people such
procedures quickly get out of hand and become cumbersome, causing more
problems in the end than they solve.

It's like teaching. You can imagine that there would be some teachers
who would only cover their pet topics or things they are particularly
knowledgeable about, and kids would learn inconsistently depending who
was teaching them. So they introduce a National Curriculum so everyone
can be sure of learning a common set of topics, but at the expense of
stifling teacher's creativity. Or likewise in Church circles, where
having to follow a lectionary helps ensure parts of the Bible other than
just favourite passages all get a look in.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/08/2021 17:05, Jason wrote:

> I agree with all of the above. The problem I guess is that like in any
> field, there are some bad practices in some places and some good
> practices in others. You can see why there would be a desire to foster a
> standard approach, which of necessity means following defined procedures
> and processes.

Indeed - but when those processes result in the sort of inflexible
denial of common sense as has been displayed in the two examples quoted,
then they are a hindrance, not a help.

> It's like teaching. You can imagine that there would be some teachers
> who would only cover their pet topics or things they are particularly
> knowledgeable about, and kids would learn inconsistently depending who
> was teaching them. So they introduce a National Curriculum so everyone
> can be sure of learning a common set of topics, but at the expense of
> stifling teacher's creativity. Or likewise in Church circles, where
> having to follow a lectionary helps ensure parts of the Bible other than
> just favourite passages all get a look in.

Indeed. Fortunately we are not as inflexible as the French education system.

[Timreason]

On 21/08/2021 17:05, Jason wrote:

Yes. I think it also illustrates why principles are more important than
legalism. The intended *spirit* of the law, rather than blind following
of the letter of the law. No set of rules, regulations, procedures,
etc., ever covers all possible cases and scenarios.

We have illustrations in the New Testament of where doing the right
thing is more important than strict adherence to written regulations.
The most common illustration Christ gave was over Sabbath-keeping. The
10 Commandments very clearly state that on the Sabbath you shall do NO
work, no exceptions are given. Yet, Christ not only gave examples, but
indeed did good works Himself on the Sabbath, much to the annoyance and
disgust of the legalists of His day. It was better to pull a sheep from
a ditch on the Sabbath, than to let it suffer for a full day and perhaps
die. Concern even for a sheep, let alone for a person, over-ruled the
clear command to "Do NO work."

We have looked at examples here on this group previously, about how even
some of the 10 Commandments might be over-ridden by some circumstances
that can arise. I gave the example once of someone in a crisis situation
(such as devastation from an earthquake or whatever) who might break
into a chemist's shop and steal insulin to save the life of a diabetic.
Maybe there are exceptions to 'Thou shalt not kill", even. Is killing a
terrorist before he detonates a bomb killing dozens, justified?

In the context of the New Testament times, Jesus was very critical of
the over-legalistic scribes, Pharisees, and teachers of the law.

It's why we are to have rules "Written on our hearts", to apply
principles with reason, rather than apply rules rigidly, irrespective of
reason.

So, the rules don't go away, but we are given the principles of Love God
and Neighbour. Reason comes into it, and the rules need to be
interpreted in that context. The spirit of the law decides how the
letter of the law should be interpreted.

Tim.

[Mike Davis]

Well said, Tim!

[Jason]

I absolutely agree with all of that: the "spirit" of the law is (or
should be) far and away the most important thing. We should always apply
reason and common sense in these matters, and individual specific
circumstances always looked at properly. I wish we could handle *all*
legal matters (including the law of the land, as well as our approach to
the Bible) this way.

I suspect part of the difficulty why this is now lacking in many areas
and not just in social care is all about lawyers and lawsuits rather than
care. You have to have written procedures, training, and proof that you
are following them. Sadly these legal battles very rarely have anything
whatsoever to do with common sense and reason.

[Timreason]

On 22/08/2021 14:05, Jason wrote:
>
> I absolutely agree with all of that: the "spirit" of the law is (or
> should be) far and away the most important thing. We should always apply
> reason and common sense in these matters, and individual specific
> circumstances always looked at properly. I wish we could handle *all*
> legal matters (including the law of the land, as well as our approach to
> the Bible) this way.
>
> I suspect part of the difficulty why this is now lacking in many areas
> and not just in social care is all about lawyers and lawsuits rather than
> care. You have to have written procedures, training, and proof that you
> are following them. Sadly these legal battles very rarely have anything
> whatsoever to do with common sense and reason.
>

Sadly, there's nothing new under the Sun. I'm reading "Bleak House" at
the moment, in which Dickens describes the legal system back in the 19th
Century and the never ending lawsuits, and how all the money ends up in
the lawyers' pockets.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/08/2021 09:18, Timreason wrote:

> Yes. I think it also illustrates why principles are more important than
> legalism. The intended *spirit* of the law, rather than blind following
> of the letter of the law. No set of rules, regulations, procedures,
> etc., ever covers all possible cases and scenarios.

I agree with the further comments you make (deleted) but with regard to
the above would point out that should there be an enquiry, protesting
that you followed the "spirit of the rules" will not get you off the
hook; demonstrating that you followed the letter will. Unfortunately.