They seemed to leave human rights under the jurisdiction of others. In 1947, another example arose in the USA when the AASW adopted, during its delegates’ conference, a platform statement that foreshadowed the UDHR’s Article 25, whose adoption was to come more than one and a half years later. This statement, however, was found to use the word “need” instead of the word “right”. It stated that everyone everywhere was in the need for provisions, which were organized provisions that ensured; employment opportunities and stable streams of income, physical and mental health promotion, safeguarding of homes, adequate education, and religious expression opportunities (Healy, 2008).
There is a juxtaposition of rights and needs, which seem as if it stresses that one is less important or incompatible to the other. Instead, it was found that social work might reframe the interpretation in various ways. It has been found that the Articles twenty-two and twenty-five have their basis on human needs for development and survival (Healy, 2008). It was also found that social work could do more to capitalize on its identity as a profession based on action. Social workers, except maybe for professors, do not spend time expounding philosophy; instead engage in meeting needs and solving problems. Social workers, it can be argued, are, in article 25’s implementation, the front line in implementation of human workers’ rights with key ICESCR provisions, as well as others laid out in CEDAW and CRC (Healy, 2008).
The profession, as it looks, possesses an opportunity to re-assert its focus on human rights more clearly (Healy, 2008). It has been found that the strong compatibility of its values and mission with human rights is suggestive of a natural linkage. The profession, using human rights, is provided with a clear direction at international level, which also bridges national and international concerns. In the field of human rights, this profession