Valuing Peoples purposes to put out a model for people with Learning Disabilities in order to upgrade services and to give people better opportunities at life. Several Government Proposals have been summarised in four cardinal policies of Inclusion, Rights, Choice and Independence. However, does valuing people offer something new to disablement services, or could it be argued that it merely offers “ more of the same. ”
It is of import to gain that instead that these rules can be seen as interconnected, instead than separate and distinguishable. Valuing Peoples ( 2001 ) recognises that people with larning disablements want to be recognised and “ included ” in services, ( DOH, 2001, pg 11, ) but recognise that there are barriers which prevent people with learning disablements “ from accessing ” services, which would usually be taken for granted, particularly in the countries around Health Care, Housing and Employment, ( DOH, 2001 pg 19 -20. ) When taking something into history I wik
In this essay, I will hence research the interdependent relationship between inclusion and rights, pulling comparings between these rules and the political orientations of Normalisation and the Social Model of Disability measuring how effectual these attacks are with covering with learning disablement. I will so research the interdependent relationship between Choice and Independence analyzing the relationship between these rules and the ideological position of Person Centred Planning. Finally, I will reason with whether Valuing People ( 2001 ) is an effectual manner to cover with the issues which affect people with a learning disablement.
First we have to research the issues of Inclusion and rights. Valuing Peoples ( 2001 ) states that “ handicapped people frequently feel excluded and unheard and want to be to the full portion of our society, instead than being marginalised and forgotten. ” Inclusion seems to hold many definition depending on the literature used, but can be conceptualised as “ a procedure of Reconstruction and reform designed to increase entree and engagement. ” Culham and Nind ( 2003. )
Although Inclusion seems to be similar with the standardization motion, ( Walmsley, 2001, Townsend and Hassell, 2006 ) there are clear differentiations between inclusion and standardization with the former “ puting an accent on engagement over normalcy ” ( Culham and Nind 2003, pg 66, ) although old attacks in Normalisation have emphasised the demand for people with larning disablement to be represented in the community and to be able to take part in services, ( O Brian, 1987. ) It is besides recognised that inclusion is a two manner procedure, where the attitudes of non handicapped people towards people who have a learning disablement is besides of import, ( Burton and Kagan, 2006. )
In contrast to this, Rights seem to be based on more of a structural attack, recognizing that services have a function to play, in order to assist people with larning disablement to incorporate into society. Valuing Peoples ( 2001 ) argues that people with a learning disablement “ hold rights to a nice instruction and to show their sentiments. ” ( DOH, 2001, pg 23 )
The rules of rights seem to be based around the Social Model of Disability, which recognises that there are barriers which prevent persons who have a learning disablement incorporating into society. It examines the manner that society disables a individual instead than the other manner unit of ammunition ( Shakespere, 2003 ) as cited in ( Grant et Al, 2005 ) It recognises that there are three cardinal barriers which prevent a individual with a larning disablement from take parting in society, “ structural: which refers to norms patterns and political orientations, environmental: which refers to physical obstructions and attitudinal: which refers to the attitudes that persons hold which enable to let a individual to keep handicapped. ” ( French, 2001 ) as cited in ( Grant et Al, 2005 )
Both positions on Inclusion and the Social Model of Disability emphasises that there is an of import social function to play in the experiences of people with a learning disablement, Culham and Nind ( 2003 ) , Susinos ( 2007 ) , Walmsley ( 2001. ) They besides both acknowledge that these experiences are a two manner procedure, and the attitudes towards persons who have a learning disablement can play an of import function in how persons who have a learning disablement feels about themselves ( Lo Bianco and Sheppard Jones, 2007, Siminski, 2003, Estell et Al, 2008. )
However, it is of import to take into history cardinal differences between the two positions. As antecedently mentioned, positions on Inclusion emphasise that people with larning disablements should seek and play a cardinal function in incorporating into society. As Wolfensberger ( 1980 ) mentioned standardization “ is about the use of agencies which are as culturally normative as possible, in order to make personal behaviors and features which are as culturally normative as possible ” Wolfensberger ( 1980 ) as cited in Brown and Smith ( 1992, pg 4. ) This attack has been criticised it fails to recognize the diverseness of larning disablement, or the persons who have larning disablement and sometimes underplays the jobs that society can play in impairing persons who have a learning disablement ( Summers and Jones, 2004, Susinos, 2007. )
The Social Model of Disability nevertheless, recognises that some of the troubles that people with learning disablements are “ socially constructed ” and that society demands to be flexible in order to run into the demands of the person. ( Susinos, 2007. ) It focuses on jobs which affects persons sense of worth and good being, ( Connors and Stalkers, 2007. ) However, the societal theoretical account of disablement has been criticised on a figure of evidences chiefly for being excessively deterministic, as it sometimes overplays societal factors and seems to propose people with learning disablements are resigned to favoritism, ( Vedder, 2005. )
Valuing Peoples seems to hold more in common with Normalisation as “ it fails to advert the barriers, which are built-in in the societal theoretical account of disablement and the solutions seem to hold more in common with standardization and societal function valorisation. ” Grant et Al ( 2005, pg 730. )
I will now discourse the rules of Independence and Choice together, as I feel that these issues are interlinked into the same ideological model. Valuing Peoples ( 2001 ) recognises “ that persons demands may differ, but the starting premise should be based on independency instead than dependance, with public services supplying the relevant support to accomplish this. ” ( DOH, 2001, pg 23. ) Choice is seen in similar footings and “ refers to ways in which people with larning disablements should hold a existent say and pick in what they do during the twenty-four hours. “ ( DOH 2001, pg 24. )
Both these rules can be based around the ideological rules of Person Centred Planning. Person Centred planning refers to ways “ in which people with learning disablements are able to do the right to do their ain determinations through coactions between the “ focus individual ” and the individual moving in the best involvement of the focal point individual ” O Brian and Lovett ( 1993, pg 2 – 3. )
The job is whether Person Centred Planning can ease pick whilst keeping independency, or whether these two attacks are incompatible with each other. We besides have to measure whether these attacks are even executable every bit good.
Person Centred Planning seems to propose that those with a program can let persons to hold more of a say in their lives, and besides receive forms of support which are focused on their demands. Holborn and Vietze ( 2002 ) showed that persons who received individual centred planning compared to persons who received Individual Service Planning, did demo higher degrees of liberty, pick and satisfaction. Valuing Peoples Now ( 2007 ) , the follow up papers to Valuing People besides mentions that “ individual centred planning has been shown to work, and helps people get betterment in of import parts of their lives ” DOH ( 2007, pg 24. )
However, there has been research which has criticised individual centred planning. Robertson et Al ( 2007 ) recognised that they are some barriers confronting individual – centred planning, which related to the issues of holding facilitators. It can besides be argued, that Person Centred Planning assumes that persons have more pick to do determinations, than may really be available, ( O Brien, O Brien and Mount, 1997. )
This can particularly be seen as in relation to services. The sum of say that people with larning disablements get in their lives, is mostly dependent on the services provided. Assorted research has shown that there are societal factors, such as mental wellness, and gender and besides factors outside the control of people with larning disablements, such as leading or stableness of a community mental wellness squad. This affected whether person would have a program or would profit from it. ( Robertson et al, 2007. ) Not holding a individual centred program has of course been shown to hold a negative impact on the services that people with larning disablements receive. ( Adams, Beadle-Brown and Mansell, 2006. )
Despite being compatible with the rule of Independence, it seems Person Centred planning may non be wholly supportive of people talking on their ain behalf. O Brian ( 1987 ) who was one of the first advocators of individual centred be aftering argues that “ individual centred planning can merely work when the focal point individuals involvement is clear, and it is in their invariable experience that people ‘s experiences are non clear until they have people in their lives who they can unite their love with optimism. ” ( O Brian and Lovett, 1993, pg 6. )
However, Advocacy has shown to be really of import, in finding service for people with larning disablements, as the broad spectrum of disablements means that persons will necessitate different degrees of support and hence demand to talk up on their ain behalf ( Stainton, 2005. ) Although Valuing People has implied that Advocacy is of import, and that more people should be involved in the determination devising procedure, ( Valuing Peoples, 2001, pg 44 – 46 ) , research has shown that excessively many larning handicapped people fail to accomplish protagonism and independency in community scenes ( Dowling, Manthorpe and Cowley, 2007 )
Based on this, it seems that individual centred planning may non be wholly compatible with the rule of independency, and the rule of pick, as services seem to be excessively inconsistent to supply the right degree of support to people who need it and the underlining rules seem to propose that people with larning disablements should non hold a say in their ain lives.
In decision, Valuing Peoples ( 2001 ) seems to offer a model, in order to upgrade services and offer people with Learning Disabilities better opportunities at life. However, through discoursing the underlining rules, we can see that Valuing People fails to take into history, some of the barriers which impairs people with larning disablement wining in society. We can besides see, that despite the proposals, services have non needfully wholly embraced the rules based within Valuing People. I would therefore argue that instead than coming up with proposals based on separate rules, Valuing Peoples ( 2001 ) needs to incorporate cardinal rules together, to guarantee that the demands of people with learning disablements are genuinely being met.
( 1,711 words )