Search

The article discusses that a board and staff committee formed to advocate for the rights of dependent children can positively affect their treatment by other community agencies. In a specialty hospital serving chronically ill and disabled children, a patient advocacy committee was established to combine the skills of professional staff members with the power of lay board members for institutional problem solving and effecting social change. The rationale for the formation of this committee was based on three principles. At Blythedale Children's Hospital, Valhalla, New York, the development of a board-professional committee to advocate for patients was spurred by external and internal changes and needs. Historically, the board had been involved with staff and children in day-to-day operational issues in the tradition of early charitable organizations. As the institution developed into a hospital, with specialists to serve the increasingly complex needs of children requiring long-term treatment for physical problems, interaction between members of the board of trustees and staff lessened.

This article focuses on comments from readers on various issues. One reader, expressing her opinion on an article has written that her general reaction to the interesting article "Informed Consent: For Whose Benefit?" in the November 1981 issue is that she has no problem with advocacy being an appropriate role of the social worker in medical settings in the areas of achieving informed consent. In her judgment. the case material presented fails to document that the patient's rights were violated at the time the worker informed the patient that the doctor was planning surgery. Therefore she believes this to be an unfortunate choice of illustrative case material. Further, although one may applaud the eagerness of the student to help her client, the example represents poor practice and inadequate supervision in a medical setting. The supervisor did not teach nor did the student practice in a collaborative fashion. Expressing an opinion on the same article another reader has written that the article is out of place in the journal.