Re: The definition of advocacy -- CAIT discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:58:36 09/21/04 Tue
Author: terry coplin
Subject: Re: The definition of advocacy
In reply to: Paul Williams 's message, "The definition of advocacy" on 11:14:30 11/25/03 Tue

>There is still considerable controversy over the
>definition of independent non-legal advocacy for
>individuals who need it. In Britain in recent years
>the idea has increasingly crept in and been widely
>accepted that advocacy should only be about respecting
>the choices of the person advocated for. This is a
>simple and seductive idea: who could possibly object
>to empowerment? However, I believe that this greatly
>restricts the scope and benefit of advocacy.
>Historically, the concept of independent non-legal
>advocacy has had three origins. Wolfensberger, who
>founded the concept of Citizen Advocacy, saw it as
>protecting people from harm; his viewpoint came from
>studying what happened to disabled people, gypsies,
>Jews and other groups in Nazi Germany. John O'Brien
>saw social exclusion as a major problem for disabled
>people and other groups; the emphasis in his
>definition is thus on social inclusion. Alongside
>these concepts, the self-advocacy movement of many
>groups proclaimed the need for empowerment, choice and
>rights. In my view, an advocate for a person needs to
>consider all three kinds of need of the person they
>are advocating for: their need for protection from
>harm, their need for inclusion in mainstream society,
>and their need for respect for their choices. Usually
>there will be no conflict between these needs, but
>occasionally things are more complex. Some of the
>situations where respecting choice may not be
>paramount are: when the person's choice cannot be
>known, where the possible choices are beyond the
>person's experience, where the possible choices are
>beyond the person's capacity to understand, where the
>person's choice is harmful to others, or where the
>person's choice in the short term is likely to damage
>their long-term health or social status. If you are
>advocating for someone with fairly moderate learning
>difficulties, for example, these difficult issues may
>never arise, but they can be common in advocacy for
>offenders, people with drug or alcohol addiction,
>people with severe mental illness, people who are
>suicidal, people with severe or profound learning
>difficulties, and people with extremely unhealthy
>lifestyles. These are people who really need
>advocacy, but the advocacy cannot be based solely on
>respecting choice. The advocate cannot shirk the
>extremely difficult responsibility of judging and
>pursuing 'best interest'. My belief is that in these
>situations no-one can tell the advocate what to do.
>Only the advocate can decide, based on their
>relationship with the person. Having been in this
>situation as an advocate, I can live with being
>accused of being patronising and disempowering,
>knowing that the intention of my advocacy has been
>long-term benefit for the person in health, social
>inclusion or protection from harm. 'What right do you
>have to dictate to other people what to do?' people
>ask me. I have no 'right', but I do think I have a
>responsibility to contribute to avoidance of harm and
>to social inclusion for people who are at risk or are
>excluded. In principle I also of course support
>empowerment, choice and rights, but not above all
>other considerations. So please don't let us go down
>the road of insisting that advocacy must in all
>circumstances respect people's choice. This would
>exclude a great deal of invaluable advocacy that goes
>on for people who are greatly at risk.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]