Visiting DCU

November 25th, 2014

DCU, thank youu! Dang that's good... rhyming! Anyway, we had a great night of quite intense debate here. Intense in the sense that due to exams, I was handling the questions and debate without my better half, Patricia. 

Branch members were particularly concerned about "will and preferences" - the extent to which this is appropriate for people with intellectual disabilities and at what stage can someone intervene when safety becomes an issue? Do we let people act upon their "will and preferences" regardless?

This is a concern that has arisen in other debates too, and its something we're going to examine in further detail. 

The defeated motion "DCU YFG supports a functional approach to capacity rather than a status based approach, as outlined in the Capacity Bill 2013" was defeated on the grounds that safety for itself and others is a major concern. Considering the lack of clarity about the extent to which "will and preferences" will be facilitated in the bill. 

To what extent is "will and preferences" appropriate? To what extent do you allow someone with disabilities to "live and learn" and at what stage is "best interests" practice warranted? I'm not sure but maybe when their behaviour is a safety risk to others or when their life or health is at high risk. 

I've highlighted high risk because the "best interests" practice associated with the Ward of Court system tends to be implemented regardless of the risk associated with the decision the person with disabilities needs to make. Here are some examples: 

• Living in supported accommodation
• Refusing the flu jab
• Refusing occupational therapy, speech and language therapy or other therapy against a carer's wishes
• Having disability allowance paid into their own account, not a parent's

These are everyday decisions with risks attached but not to the extent that "best interests" practice is warranted. However, it requires information to be pitched at an appropriate level so an informed so an informed decision can be made. If it was my will and preference to refuse the flu jab, my GP would  probably explain the risks, hear my views and then accept my decision. However, for a person with intellectual disabilities, even if the information was delivered in a way that their speech and language therapist advised as appropriate, their decision would probably not be accepted. 

Why is that? That even when the person shows understanding, their "will and preference" is not accepted? Probably because there is no legal obligation to do so, and also because "best interests" practice is king. Current laws dictate no right to autonomy regardless of risk. 

So we need to differentiate out the elements of "will and preferences" solutions and where "best practice" very occasionally, may be appropriate. 

Now back to DCU - whose branch members contributed to an extensive debate that explored current laws, culture and legislative clash and the afore mentioned issues. 

A special thanks must be given to David Heffernan, Andrew Ralph and Ryan Hunt, who helped to facilitate the event and showed great support of the campaign.

The following motion was passed: "DCU YFG support abolition of the Ward of Court System" 

The following motions was defeated: "DCU YFG support a will and preferences rather than best interests as outlined in the Capacity Bill  2013" 

Thank you to everyone who took part. See you next week where we'll be venturing beyond the Pale to Maynooth! 

Best Wishes, 

Rachel :)