Except for one important detail, eighty-two year-old Mr. Thomas was a typical client for Ms. Weiss, the social worker from a Jewish Federation-funded agency. Drinking too much, failing to take his medication, and depressed after a rancorous divorce from his second wife, Mr. Thomas found himself thinking about suicide as a way out of his misery.

Sad enough in itself, but then, as the two got to know each other, Mr. Thomas revealed a part of his history that rankled Ms. Weiss and provided a thorny ethical dilemma for her agency: the depressed grandfather, it turns out, was once a Nazi. To be more precise, he participated in the Nazi Youth movement as an adolescent and was later drafted, though he never served in the German army.

As a Jew, and specifically as the grandchild of concentration camp victims, Ms. Weiss felt an immediate abhorrence and encountered a serious moral dilemma: should she, and her agency, continue to help this man?

Living in subsidized senior housing sponsored in part by the Jewish Federation, Mr. Thomas came to Ms. Weiss' attention after he revealed his suicidal thoughts to the building manager. Mr. Thomas accepted Ms. Weiss' help, and welcomed some other services she was able to arrange for him through the agency.

As they got to know each other, Mr. Thomas told Ms. Weiss his story. This was his second divorce, and though he had two children from his first marriage and three grandchildren, only one of the grandchildren lived in his city and stayed in touch with him. He had an amputated leg, but couldn't use a prosthesis, so his good leg was deteriorating.

Over the course of several visits, Mr. Weiss eventually volunteered the information about his Nazi past. For the Nazi Youth, he taught the younger children how to swim and took them on hikes during the summer. Then, as an adult, he was drafted into the German army, but was released for medical reasons. He left Germany for the U.S. in the early 1950s, and came to Chicago, where he worked until his retirement.

Despite her abhorrence, Ms. Weiss felt a professional obligation to continue helping Mr. Thomas. She revisited his past with him several times, and each time the story remained consistent: he had some involvement with the Nazi Youth movement and with the Germany army, but it seemed to be no more than that. He didn't seem to be covering up a darker, more disturbing history.

Several months later, Mr. Thomas requested phone reassurance services from another Jewish agency. During the assessment interview, he disclosed to the interviewer, who was an older Jewish woman, that he was in the German army during World War II. The woman passed this information on to her supervisor along with her intention to report him to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. She called the social service agency to express her anger that Mr. Thomas was living in "Jewish" housing and receiving services from a Jewish agency. Ms. Weiss was informed of the call and brought the case to the agency's ethics committee.

Avoiding the 'Better Lie'
The ensuing discussion focused on what was known about Mr. Thomas' past, and what he really did both before and during the war; did he simply circle the fringe of the Nazi movement as an impressionable youth, or was there more sinister involvement? In addition, ethics committee members expressed great concern about what would happen should the wider Jewish community find out that the agency was serving someone who had served in the German army. And there was also great concern about the social worker's and the agency's responsibility to Mr. Thomas as a client of the agency.

The psychiatrist on the ethics committee had seen Mr. Thomas at Ms. Weiss' request, to assess his depression and suicidal tendencies. He too heard the story of Mr. Thomas' involvement with the Nazis and with the German army. The story remained consistent despite many probing questions.

The rabbi on the committee cited two principles in Jewish law, which seemed to apply in this case. Miggo is an argument used to support the claim of one party to a dispute, if the litigant could have made a claim more advantageous to his interests than he actually did. In such a case, and without other evidence or witnesses, we can only assume he was telling the truth, because he could have told "a better lie."

Bildnis Valentiner 1, by Karl Schmidt-Rottluff

Mr. Thomas' story must be accepted at face value because in the absence of other information or witnesses, he could have just as well told a story more advantageous to himself (e.g., that he wasn't in Germany at all, or that he didn't serve). In other words, he volunteered the potentially damning information when he didn't have to reveal anything at all about his past. Because he'd committed no particular crime against Jews in his youth, he should be treated as any other person in need.

In addition, the rabbi stated that Jewish law requires Jews to follow the law of the land. By providing government-supported services, the agency is dealing, in addition to the moral question, with a question of financial interest. The man has broken no law, the Constitution protects free speech, and the government has strict nondiscrimination rules.

The committee determined that it has both a legal and a moral responsibility to serve Mr. Thomas. Since he receives government-supported services from the agency, it acts as an agent of the government and unless otherwise informed, is contractually obligated to provide services to him.

Since he is already a client, the professional ethics of social workers, nurses and physicians do not allow them to abandon him. Since Mr. Thomas could have "told a better lie," his story must be believed until or unless new evidence surfaces or witnesses come forward. Therefore, the committee decided that the agency has an obligation to continue to provide services to Mr. Thomas.

Phyllis Mitzen is director of resources and development at the Council for Jewish Elderly in Chicago, and has been involved with ethics committee work since 1984.