EXOD862 Can I Accept Gifts from Indigent Clients? Two of the most fundamental principles of ethics are equity and consent: people should be treated equally and fairly, and they should not be coerced. These principles can be violated in flagrant ways, as when a bribe is given to attain special treatment or when deception or pressure are used to evade true consent. But Jewish tradition sensitizes us to more subtle ways in which these principles can be compromised. These are exemplified by the problem that arises when a grateful but impoverished client gives a gift to a helpful public servant. Q: Clients at our social services agency often show their gratitude by giving presents to the social workers. Is it proper to accept? A: The fact that clients are eager to show their gratitude is a wonderful statement about the agency. It shows that people are doing their jobs with ability and dedication, and after all, the work ethic is the starting place for workplace ethics. However these gifts entail two ethical issues that require discussion: equity and expense. THE IMPORTANCE OF EQUITY A very serious problem is that gifts can create favoritism. Our tradition tells us that it is almost impossible to maintain objectivity after one accepts a gift. When the Torah prohibits judges from accepting bribes, it does not say that it is wrong to deliberately pervert justice. That is self-evident. Instead the Torah tells us, "For bribery blinds the sighted, and distorts the words of the righteous" [this verse]. Even a wise and righteous person, who fully intends to remain objective despite the gift, will find that his judgment is distorted. The Talmud educates us to be very sensitive to this consideration. It tells us of important judges who disqualified themselves from judging cases in response to even tiny favors received from one side in the case--favors we might consider routine courtesies. In one case a litigant extended a steadying hand to the judge on a wobbly bridge; in another the petitioner drove a bird away from the judge's head [Ketubbot 105b]. A social worker has to create a working relationship with a client, and exercise a degree of advocacy. He or she can't maintain the same level of detachment that is expected of a judge. But the fundamental psychological insight behind the prohibition of bribes applies in every field. Therefore any gift policy must ensure that all clients are treated equally. Even if we could prevent gifts from creating inequity, we still need to cope with the appearance of favoritism. Some clients will see others giving gifts and will think that they won't get adequate attention unless they do the same. This is a very unfair burden on the agency's impoverished clients. The need for the appearance of equity is graphically illustrated by a story from the Talmud: One of the greatest sages, known by his title Rav, was approached by litigant who was sure that Rav would remember and favor him. In fact, Rav barely recognized the man; yet he disqualified himself as a judge in the case because the litigant's behavior conveyed the impression that the two of them were on friendly terms. And even the replacement judge, Rav Kahana, warned the litigant to stop cultivating the impression of being favored by Rav [Sanhedrin 7b-8a]. DURESS The second possible problem is that accepting gifts make people feel pressured to give them. The problem can be present even the case of an ordinary, friendly gift where the question of equity does not arise. For example, in a social situation, we do not mind that a gift may create a feeling of gratitude and commitment; on the contrary, this feeling is one of the lovely things about gifts. But even in this case there was a problem in accepting a present that is beyond the giver's means. Maimonides writes, "Accepting hospitality from someone who does not have enough for himself verges on stealing. Yet the recipient thinks that he is done nothing wrong, saying, 'did not take only what he offered me?'" [Maimonides, Teshuvah 4:4]. Maimonides awakens us to an important insight: seeming consent can be affected by different kinds of hidden duress. Although the urge to be hospitable is laudable, we should not take excessive advantage of it. We find the same insight regarding charity. Jewish law tells us that charity collectors need to be careful not to put pressure on people to give beyond on their means [Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 248:7]. WHEN GIVING IS GETTING The considerations we have just discussed dictate any gift policy should ensure that gifts do not affect the judgment of the social workers and do not put a financial burden on clients. Does this mean that gifts should be forbidden altogether? Not necessarily. There is an additional ethical consideration we should keep in mind: the value of expressing gratitude. Sometimes accepting is the greatest form of giving. A blanket prohibition on gifts could prevent the clients from expressing their feelings. This definitely presents a problem. Jewish tradition teaches us that giving is a basic human need. This is most clearly demonstrated by the stipulation in Jewish law that charity recipients, who are entitled to support for their needs, should be given enough so that they are themselves able to give charity from the donations they receive [Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 248:1]. One good solution is to adopt a strict policy of not accepting any gifts worth more than some nominal value. Two or three dollars is enough to buy an attractive greeting card or an inexpensive novelty trophy, allowing the clients the satisfaction of expressing their gratitude. But this amount is not so large that it would create an impression of inequity or constitute a real hardship even for a poor person.