A great deal of newsprint and radio air time has been devoted recently to questioning the approach of social workers to the assessment of couples who wish to adopt abroad.

Most recently, in this newspaper Dr Patricia Casey sharply criticised social workers for their "almost pornographic testing" of prospective adopters, claiming this was proof that social workers were "antipathetic to the philosophy of adoption".

Such simplistic gibes cause great offence to conscientious social workers, who have a very difficult and complex role to fulfil. I have never heard of a "philosophy of adoption". Adoption is a service for children. It is not a philosophy, nor is it a "cure" for childlessness. As a service to children it must be dominated by child-centred practices. It is quite different, for example, from medical treatment aimed at helping a couple to conceive.

Whereas medical intervention is geared towards giving couples what they want - their own child - adoption assessment is interested in what the couple can offer someone else's child; a child who may well have huge emotional problems caused by severe neglect. (This is often confused with assessing their suitability as parents of their own children.)

This crucial difference brings immense complexity. Assessment is as much about preparing applicants for the next 18 years of a possibly troubled child's life as it is about "weeding out the head-bangers and perverts", as I once heard an applicant describe it.

Coincidentally, those who adopt abroad are overwhelmingly comfortably off, some extremely so. Thus the idea that there isn't a way round what is perceived as social work "bureaucracy" is a strange concept.

In Ireland TDs are perceived as human scissors for cutting "red tape".

Consequently, health board social workers involved in foreign adoption operate in a highly politically charged atmosphere.

The present criticisms have focused on so-called "intrusive" questions, mainly relating to the applicants' sexual relationships. It is vital that such questions are asked, including, for example, about premarital sex. Since most of the children placed for adoption are conceived out of wedlock, attitudes to non-marital sex are very important, as this has been shown to colour attitudes to the children.

Adoption practice is informed by many professional sources, one of which is research on psycho-sexual problems. It is extraordinary to read Dr Casey, a professor of psychiatry, refer to questions about sexual relationships as "almost pornographic".

Adoption assessment is a rigorous process; it has to be if it is to be done well. Readers should ask themselves what they would want to know about a couple who were adopting their child.

The answer is: probably "everything", especially about any possible relationship or psychological problems the couple might have. Many personal problems are related to grief. The loss of one's fertility and the children one will never have are vital issues to explore.

As someone who has carried out adoption assessments, I know there is a very easy route to being popular with prospective adopters. This can be achieved simply by letting them determine how the assessment is done. To do so would be to abdicate professional responsibility.

Likewise, there is a danger that the State could also abdicate its responsibility here. There is a very strong lobby to have foreign adoption taken away from health boards and farmed out to fee-charging agencies that will offer a "total package", i.e. assessment and child placement.

So far this agenda has not been openly acknowledged, but it does exist. It would be tempting for health boards to give in. In one fell swoop they would have removed a very large political monkey from their backs. The constant barrage of bad press for the health boards can be seen as a "softening up" process along this road.

If this happens, however, it will be a major mistake and will leave the door open for future scandals. If there is one key point that emerges from adoption research it is that the process goes wrong when the needs of adopters are placed before the needs of children or birth parents.

In an ideal world there would be no such thing as adoption. Every child would grow up with his/her parents and no couple who wanted a child would be unable to conceive. Life, unfortunately, is not ideal.

However, the political pressure is to make foreign adoption easier, not to find more places in care for our own children in need. Prospective foreign adopters have brought enormous political muscle to bear on backbench TDs and ministers, which has produced some very curious anomalies.

For example, there is now a legal obligation on health boards to assess those who want to go abroad to adopt. No equivalent obligation exists for those who want to foster a child in Ireland. Similarly, filling social work vacancies in adoption assessment is a top priority, while other "ordinary" vacancies can wait.

Prof Casey worries about abortion and unborn children in the context of adoption. Irish social workers worry about doing their job to the best of their ability for born children. The question is: will the State allowed its employees to be maligned in the media, in a softening-up process for privatisation, or will it carry out its solemn duty to put the needs of children - not adults - first?

Kieran McGrath is editor of Irish Social Worker