‘Organising objects’: Adult safeguarding practice and article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Keeling, Amanda

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.05.005

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…in British Columbia and England). Keeling (2017) argues that the more effective way to enact safeguarding is to work on enhancing the individual's autonomy, through supportive environments and relationships, in effect to build their legal capacity (Mackay and Notman, 2017). This model tends to more explicitly recognise the protection of each citizen's human rights and autonomy as prescribed by Article 16 of the UNCRPD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the appeal of such laws, they are not without their critics. It may be that unintended outcomes occur, including potentially intrusive professional involvement in adults' lives with or without their consent, undermining the rights and autonomy of individuals (Harbison et al, 2012;Keeling, 2017). That is not to say, however, that protection and autonomy are essentially conflicting; it can be the case that protective action may promote a person's autonomy in the long term (Preston-Shoot and Cornish, 2014;Stevens, 2013).…”

Section: Adult Protection Legislation and Reporting Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mandatory reporting and adult safeguarding: a rapid realist review

Donnelly

2019

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the concept of mandatory reporting in adult safeguarding in the jurisdictions of Australia, Canada, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Design/methodology/approach A rapid realist evaluation of the literature on this topic was carried out in order to answer the question: "what works, for whom and in what circumstances?” Particular attention was paid to Context(s), Mechanism(s) and Outcome(s) configurations of adult safeguarding reporting systems and processes. Findings The evaluation found a range of arguments for and against mandatory reporting and international variations on the scope and powers of mandatory reporting. Research limitations/implications This review was undertaken in late 2018 so subsequent policy and practice developments will be missing from the evaluation. The evaluation focussed on five jurisdictions therefore, the findings are not necessarily translatable to other contexts. Practical implications Some jurisdictions have introduced mandatory reporting and others are considering doing so. The potential advantages and challenges of introducing mandatory reporting are highlighted. Social implications The introduction of mandatory reporting may offer professionals increased powers to prevent and reduce the abuse of adults, but this could also change the dynamic of relationships within families, and between families and professionals. Originality/value This paper provides an accessible discussion of mandatory reporting across Ireland and internationally which to date has been lacking from the literature.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Adult Protection Legislation and Reporting Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandatory reporting and adult safeguarding: a rapid realist review

Donnelly

2019

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A great deal of this sort of work involves treading carefully between respecting individual choices and protecting the individual from harm or abuse. It may well be that at least some social workers tread this line with considerable care, but there is no doubt that the protection of people defined by the system as “vulnerable” figures large in their professional ethos [see, e.g., ( 39 )]. The social care administrative system triggers enquiries into professional conduct when an individual is hurt, abused, or dies.…”

Section: Implementation and The Problem Of Safeguardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

At the Interface Between Paradigms: English Mental Capacity Law and the CRPD

Βartlett

2020

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is rightly seen as a break from the past in mental capacity law. At the same time, implementation will occur in the specific existing legal and administrative contexts of each State. This article uses English mental capacity law to explore these issues. The English Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) can be considered the best of the “old” paradigm. The article argues that there are continuities between it and a CRPD-compliant approach. These continuities should be built upon. Further, the implementation of the MCA is still in recent memory. The lessons of that implementation will have considerable application to moves toward CRPD compliance. CRPD compliance is not just about specialist stator guardianship régimes. It is also about a myriad of law, currently capacity based, located in specific legal areas such as contract, wills and succession, and criminal law. Reform in these areas will involve not just disability law, but successful integration into those other legal areas, a matter requiring the involvement of those knowledgeable in those other areas. Since change in these areas will involve the removal of disability as a gateway criterion, they will affect the public as a whole, and the thus, determination of the degree and sort of intervention that the broader public will consider appropriate.

show abstract

“…506-507) notes in his discussion of B Borough Council v. S [2006] EWHC 2584 (Fam) – which involved the decision to remove a man who lacked capacity from the home he had shared with his wife for 70 years – that the responses invoked may involve even less scrutiny than in cases involving children[6]. As Sherwood-Johnson (2013) surmises, the concern here is that responses to status-based conceptualisations of vulnerability may “[…] [legitimate] more powers for professionals to override considerations of consent than exist for other adults […]” (Sherwood-Johnson, 2013, p. 916), and which insufficiently listen to the voice of the adult considered “vulnerable” (Keeling, 2017). In effect, rather than listening to the adult, and recognising their individual circumstances, a status-based conceptualisation of the “vulnerable adult” risks a “one size fits all” approach in terms of responses and interventions, and a carte blanche to override the individual’s wishes.…”

Section: The Critique Of the “Vulnerable” Adultmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet these orders do not provide for a power of removal or barring, which, as Williams (2017) notes, may leave the adult at a greater risk than if no power of entry existed in the first place. A full discussion and review of the scope and effectiveness of adult safeguarding powers under either the Care Act, or the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act, are, again, outside the scope of this paper, although literature is beginning to emerge on the implementation and effectiveness of these provisions (Anka et al , 2017; Cooper and Bruin, 2017), and adult safeguarding more generally (Keeling, 2017). While such literature is to be welcomed, more research is needed on how well the positive changes to adult safeguarding identified in this paper are being embedded into social work practice, or whether the negative features that remain in the terminology “adult at risk” continue to have a bearing on adult safeguarding practice.…”

Section: “Adult At Risk”: Vulnerability By Any Other Name?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Adults at risk”: “vulnerability” by any other name?

Pritchard‐Jones

2018

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore and critique the conceptual and terminological shift – particularly from “vulnerability” to “adult at risk” – in adult safeguarding under the Care Act 2014 and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. Design/methodology/approach The paper compares the notion of the vulnerable adult in safeguarding, with the notion of an adult at risk under the Care Act 2014 and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and questions to what extent such a shift addresses existing criticisms of “vulnerability”. Findings The paper criticises the notion of the “vulnerable adult” for perpetuating the stigma associated with an impairment or disability, and for the types of legal and policy responses deemed appropriate under such an understanding of vulnerability. While efforts to replace the term “vulnerable adult” with “adult at risk” are, to some extent, to be welcomed, “adult at risk” under the legislation relies on the same characteristics for which the “vulnerable adult” has been criticised. Nevertheless, the safeguarding provisions under the two Acts have made some strides forward in comparison to their legal and policy predecessors and the notion of the “vulnerable adult”. Originality/value This paper’s originality and value lie in its scrutiny of the notion of “vulnerability” in adult safeguarding, in comparison to the newer terminology of an “adult at risk”, whilst also suggesting that in important respects – in relation to the interventions deemed appropriate where an adult is perceived to be at risk – the two pieces of legislation are a marked improvement on their predecessors. It also offers some thoughts as to how criticisms of the new legislation may be overcome.

show abstract

‘Organising objects’: Adult safeguarding practice and article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Cited by 13 publications

References 32 publications

Mandatory reporting and adult safeguarding: a rapid realist review

Mandatory reporting and adult safeguarding: a rapid realist review

At the Interface Between Paradigms: English Mental Capacity Law and the CRPD

“Adults at risk”: “vulnerability” by any other name?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About