Deprivation of Liberty in the Shadows of the Institution

ePDF and ePUB available Open Access under CC-BY-NC licence. During the 20th century the locus of care shifted from large institutions into the community. However, this shift was not always accompanied by liberation from restrictive practices. In 2014 a UK Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of ‘deprivation of liberty’ resulted in large numbers of older and disabled people in care homes, supported living and family homes being re-categorized as ‘detained’. Placing this ruling in its social, historical and global context, this book presents a socio-legal analysis of social care detention in the post-carceral era. Drawing from disability rights law and the meanings of ‘home’ and ‘institution’ it proposes solutions to the Cheshire West ruling’s paradoxical implications

Liberty Tactics:On the rise of ‘Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards’

The UK government estimates that 300,000 people in England and Wales are deprived of their liberty in connection with care arrangements made by others in their ‘best interests’ under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). To put this number in perspective, this is more than three times the prison population in England and Wales. It is six times as many detentions for involuntary mental health treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). In this article, I explore the rise of 'social care detention' - a phenomenon that is linked to recognition and regulation of care arrangements in the community as a 'deprivation of liberty'. I show that this phenomenon is not unique to the UK; a growing number of countries are also recognising and regulating restrictive and supervisory social care living arrangements as a form of detention. I show how this has rarely resulted from deliberate government policy, but rather the pursue of 'liberty tactics' by activists, lawyers, ombudsmen and others concerned to 'call out' the violence that is sometimes embedded in social care, and subject it to better regulation or even abolition. I end with reflections and highlighting the challenges for reformists and abolitionists with the pursuit of liberty tactics

Deprivation of Liberty in the Shadows of the Institution

ePDF and ePUB available Open Access under CC-BY-NC licence. During the 20th century the locus of care shifted from large institutions into the community. However, this shift was not always accompanied by liberation from restrictive practices. In 2014 a UK Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of ‘deprivation of liberty’ resulted in large numbers of older and disabled people in care homes, supported living and family homes being re-categorized as ‘detained’. Placing this ruling in its social, historical and global context, this book presents a socio-legal analysis of social care detention in the post-carceral era. Drawing from disability rights law and the meanings of ‘home’ and ‘institution’ it proposes solutions to the Cheshire West ruling’s paradoxical implications

Chapter 6 Disability and Human Rights

This fully revised and expanded second edition of the Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies takes a multidisciplinary approach to disability and provides an authoritative and up-to-date overview of the main issues in the field around the world today. Adopting an international perspective and arranged thematically, it surveys the state of the discipline, examining emerging and cutting-edge areas as well as core areas of contention. Disability studies and different life experiences, examining how disability and disability studies intersects with ethnicity, sexuality, gender, childhood and ageing. Containing 15 revised chapters and 12 new chapters from an international selection of leading scholars, this authoritative handbook is an invaluable reference for all academics, researchers, and more advanced students in disability studies and associated disciplines such as sociology, health studies and social work

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Institutional Domination of People with Learning Disabilities

People with learning disabilities are subject to a wide range of potential interferences with their choices and freedoms when they are 'placed' in institutional care services. The cumulative and pervasive impact of these regimes can be monumentally detrimental to self and wellbeing. Some have suggested that a new law, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, may limit the interferences that people with disabilities are subject to in care services. In this thesis, I subject the Mental Capacity Act to a critique drawn from new republican political theory. I argue that far from limiting the interferences that people with disabilities are subject to, the Act creates a mechanism which permits a proliferation of arbitrary interferences in people's everyday lives, with little recourse for people to 'invigilate' such interferences. I base this argument on a critical analysis of case law connected to the Mental Capacity Act, and by critically examining four key mechanisms of enforcement: Independent Mental Capacity Advocates, the Court of Protection, complaints procedures and regulation by the Care Quality Commission. I argue that, paradoxically, a framework for detention introduced by the Act - the deprivation of liberty safeguards - in fact contains more ingredients for ameliorating states of domination in these services than the Mental Capacity Act itself. However, the safeguards also suffer from serious defects. I conclude by discussing what lessons may be drawn from the problems with the Mental Capacity Act and the safeguards for wider reform efforts connected with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.European Social Fun

Deprivation of liberty in the shadows of the institution

During the 20th century the locus of care shifted from large institutions into the community. However, this shift was not always accompanied by liberation from restrictive practices. In 2014 a UK Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of ‘deprivation of liberty’ resulted in large numbers of older and disabled people in care homes, supported living and family homes being re-categorized as ‘detained’. Placing this ruling in its social, historical and global context, this book presents a socio-legal analysis of social care detention in the post-carceral era. Drawing from disability rights law and the meanings of ‘home’ and ‘institution’ it proposes solutions to the Cheshire West ruling’s paradoxical implications