Human Rights and Social Wrongs: Issues in Safeguarding Adults with Learning Disabilities

Abstract

This paper uses a framework of human rights to explore the high levels of bullying and abuse experienced by adults with learning disabilities. It will identify the different needs of people with different degrees of learning disability before moving on to focus on the particular needs of those with mild learning disabilities who are targeted within local communities. It goes on to suggest a need for a change in assessment practice, away from task-oriented functional assessments and towards assessments which pay greater attention to social abilities and community dynamics. In concluding, the authors argue that present policies and their underpinning principles are at times too dogmatic and call for a greater recognition of the diversity of needs and vulnerabilities which exist across the learning disability spectrum.

Transforming positive risk-taking practices: the possibilities of creativity and resilience in learning disability contexts

“…Kwok and Scully (2005) describe the creation of guardianship boards in Hong Kong to safeguard the interests of those considered mentally unable to make decisions about their personal, medical or financial affairs. Fyson and Kitson (2010) argue that abuse can only be minimised by safeguarding policies which reflect an understanding that choice and promotion must necessarily be mediated by effective adult protection measures. The requirement for such mediation (or a balance of risk and safety) is also acknowledged by Jenkins and Davies (2011) who note that there is a fine balance between safeguarding and empowering.…”

Constructions of ‘vulnerability’ in comparative perspective: Scottish protection policies and the trouble with ‘adults at risk’

“…The evidence does not exist to support this argument and, indeed, ASP responses based on an assumption of vulnerability have already been found helpful by some people (Mackay et al, 2011). There are real dangers in idealising concepts like 'independence', 'autonomy' and 'choice' in movements intended to improve social services, in such a way that those people least able to aspire to these ideals are further disempowered (Ferguson, 2007;Fyson and Kitson, 2010). A blanket denial of vulnerability would fall into this trap, and is not the present intention.…”

“…For instance it might be confined to situations where adults lack capacity, as was the wish of some campaigners during the passage of the ASPSA. This is probably a simplistic solution, however, given the very real concerns that proponents of ASP policy and others have raised about situational as opposed to inherent vulnerability (Dunn et al, 2008), and the questionable equation of non-intervention with respect for human rights in circumstances where individuals are disempowered relative to their abusers and by their abuse (Choudhry and Herring, 2006;Fyson and Kitson, 2010;Patrick and Smith, 2009). The contention here is not that these issues do not exist, then, but that attempts to delimit the groups to whom they might apply distort them and sidestep their full import.…”

‘Behind This Wall’ – Experiences of Seclusion on Locked Wards for Women

“…This reflects how disturbing the experience of transition from other services can be, and furthermore is at risk of violating the human rights of the service-users (Sullivan and Mullen, 2012, Fyson and Kitson, 2010, Lawson, 2004, Hendricks, 2007. On admission, women are sometimes told by staff at their previous placement that they are merely visiting the service which causes further distress when they realise they are detained and must stay (Fish, 2015).…”