Resolve to embrace human rights

(A note before I begin this blog post: You should not consider anything written in this blog as legal advice for you or anyone you care for).

During my dementia training for social care professionals, I ask participants:

“Do you think people with dementia have human rights?”

Most participants, keen to say the right thing, murmur, “Of course.”

Which naturally leads me onto the next question:

“So what are these human rights then? Name me some...”

And the silence that follows is usually defending.

When the silence is broken, it’s been broken by some really ‘interesting’ contributions. The right to "a cup of tea" and a "clean bum" are two notable examples.

I talk about human rights during my training on living well, or living better, with dementia. Although human rights fit into every aspect of living with dementia, I think presenting them in the context of 'living well' sends an important message that human rights are vital to the person’s quality of life.

Human rights and people with dementia

There has been a very powerful movement towards thinking about the support of people with dementia in a human rights context, led by many important voices including Dementia Alliance International. The disability sector really pioneered human rights work in relation to people with various disabilities, and leading advocates for people living with dementia do, quite correctly, feel that the same rights should be afforded to people with dementia. Legally that is certainly true, but in practice it happens sporadically at best.

Human Rights law encompasses many different aspects of life. To pick out some of the Rights that are particularly relevant in the context of health, social care and dementia, I often think about:

•    The Right to life

•    The Right to freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment

•    The Right to liberty and security

•    The Right to respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence

•    The Right to freedom of thought, belief and religion

•    The Right to freedom of expression

•    The Right to protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms

•    The Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property

Historically, the most common barrier to the application of a person’s human rights has been the assumption that all people with dementia are incapable of self-determination (autonomy) simply because they have dementia. Of course, with the introduction in the UK of the Mental Capacity Act (My blog post on MCA is here), that assumption could no longer, legally, be made.

Yet, such is the lack of understanding about MCA, and the often poor practical application of its 5 main principles, the MCA is frequently as misunderstood as human rights legislation. Even more alarmingly, whilst most social care staff when questioned will say they’ve had some basic training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), the majority of staff I see have never even been asked to consider their care and support practices in the context of the person’s human rights.

Simplifying legal complexities

Human rights is a huge topic that I do not profess to be an expert in. But even for a lay person such as myself, there are important aspects that I feel anyone can and should grasp to augment their understanding.

Firstly, the framework for making decisions is an approach based on asking yourself:

•    Is it lawful?

•    Is it a legitimate aim?

•    Is it necessary in a democratic society?

Three fairly simple questions. And of course the ‘it’ could be anything, from a daily care and support issue around personal care or medication right through to locking doors.

Secondly, the principles of a human rights based approach are:

•    Proportionality

•    Least restrictive option

•    Balancing rights and risks

•    Proactive strategies

All of those 4 principles draw me in, much like the principle in the Mental Capacity Act that allows for a person to make an ‘unwise’ decision. The concepts of balancing rights and risks, being proportional, and taking the least restrictive option always spark interesting conversations. 

Practicing a human rights based approach

In one recent example, I asked a group of care workers what they would do if the person they supported wanted to take a walk outside:

Care staff: “Our residents often go outside onto the patio in the summer.”

Me: “Ok, I was thinking a bit further than your patio area. And I’m talking about right now. Late November, 4pm.”

Care staff: “Ah well that would be dangerous so we’d keep them in.”

Me: “But what about the person’s right to liberty and security? If we say we are respecting the person’s rights, are we only doing that between May and September?”

Care staff: “But we have to keep them safe - it’s getting dark.”

Me: “It is, so if we are taking a human right’s approach, respecting the person’s right to LIBERTY and SECURITY, let’s ensure the person is wrapped up in warm clothes and non-slip shoes, dress ourselves similarly, take a torch (and we have lighting around the building) and go for a walk outside with the person. That way we are supporting the person’s right to liberty, doing our best to keep the person safe by keeping them warm and going with them, and being proportional by supporting what the person wants but keeping to areas that are well-lit and won’t involve us getting lost. We have balanced the person’s rights with the risks and found a less restrictive option (than keeping the person locked up inside). We could also add being proactive in our approach if the person wants to regularly go for a walk at this time and we anticipate and support that. And as a plus point, can anyone think of any other benefits?

(Silence)

Me: “The person will hopefully get a bit of an appetite for their supper, enjoy some exercise, and potentially stave off any sundowning symptoms by being occupied and engaged. Best of all, we will have empowered that person.”

Empowerment - the very best example of living well

That, for me, is ultimately what a human rights based approach is all about - empowerment. Losing rights and freedoms is very disempowering. Being told "no" constantly. Being locked up like a prisoner. Feeling your needs and wants don’t matter. Anyone in that position might just give up.

But when we find a way by being proactive, even if logistically we have to make some compromises, we transform the person’s experience. Being told "yes" is a positive feeling. When the doors open, the sense of freedom is exhilarating. Having our needs and wants met validates those needs and wants. You are living, not just existing, because you feel like a worthwhile and empowered human being.

My challenge to you

Many individuals and organisations would benefit from enhancing their understanding and revolutionising their approach to human rights to protect people living with dementia from, at best, misguided care and support and at worst, abuse. So, as 2017 draws to a close (this post marks my last D4Dementia blog of the year), my challenge to everyone involved in the care and support of people with dementia is to make 2018 the year you resolve to embrace a human rights based approach. And to support you, this won’t be my last blog on the topic.

Thank you for all your support in 2017. Until 2018...

You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

LIKE D4Dementia on Facebook

Why don’t we listen to people with dementia?

Before I get into the substance behind the title I’ve chosen for this blog post, I first want to acknowledge that there are organisations who do listen to people with dementia, and organisations exclusively made up of people with dementia who give those individuals a very prominent voice. However, in both of these instances, this remains a minority representation of people with dementia, and that’s the inspiration behind this blog post.

I chose the title, ‘Why don’t we listen to people with dementia’ purely because the majority of society doesn’t. Despite awareness-raising campaigns that have begun to change the perception of dementia, stigma still looms large, language is still used in a derogatory, belittling way that helps to re-enforce stigma, and people with dementia are largely talked about by others, or ignored completely.

Reflecting on my dad’s life with dementia, he never really had a voice. As a family we didn’t understand dementia for many of the 19 years dad was living with it (and certainly in the first 10 years before his diagnosis), so in essence we were just muddling along together. In the last few years of dad's life, when he lost his more vibrant communication abilities, we did our best to advocate for him, but I appreciate now, more than ever, that the very best we could ever have done for dad was to interpret for him, and where there is interpretation there is margin for error. 

The only true representation of each person’s unique experience of living with a diagnosis of dementia is from that person themselves. Anything else is a substitution.

I understand this more now thanks to some of the inspirational people I’ve been fortunate to meet who are living with dementia. Sharing my dad’s life gave me an education in dementia like none other, but with dad gone, some of the amazing people who are living with dementia that I've met since then help me to keep learning, and that is a gift more precious than I could ever describe.

I was recently asked to compere a launch event for two books – One by Shibley Rahman, an academic, called ‘Living better with dementia’ (which I’ve written a foreword for), and one by Kate Swaffer, a lady living with dementia, called ‘What the hell happened to my brain’. Kate lives in Australia, and I’ve followed her blog since 2012 – a more insightful read would be impossible to find, and I constantly recommend Kate’s writing to anyone looking to learn more about what it’s like to live with her particular experiences of dementia.

Kate Swaffer, Beth Britton and Shibley Rahman

Given the geographical distance between us I’d only ever seen Kate’s presentations on videos, so having the opportunity to listen to her in-person was truly special. Afterwards, I described Kate’s presentation as ‘awesome’ but I’m not sure that really even begins to do it justice.

I know Kate has had many struggles in being recognised and acknowledged as an authoritative individual in her own right, and even more astonishingly, openly demonised by some who disagree with her, frankly, very common sense views. Granted we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I cannot understand why anyone would think Kate shouldn’t share her experiences, or speak out on issues like the use of language around dementia or perceptions of ‘wandering’ and ‘challenging behaviour’. 

The discomfort around Kate’s advocacy for the rights of people with dementia seems to have its roots in the belief that questioning the status quo, the way things have always been ‘done’ and ‘described’, is somehow taboo. Yet surely the reason society has progressed so far in numerous areas of life like medicine, science and technology is precisely because someone decided to question the status quo, do something differently, and find remarkable results.

Like an ostrich, there seems to be a desire to bury heads in the sand, when in reality we should be thanking and applauding people like Kate for having the courage to speak out, and the wisdom to talk so much sense. And yes, the irony of that last statement isn’t lost on me, given that people with dementia have, historically, been seen as being unable to speak out and losing any wisdom they had once dementia is diagnosed.

At the moment I feel there is a perception that a person diagnosed with dementia somehow instantly progresses to having very advanced dementia, with all the communication difficulties that can entail which would make it very difficult to be an outspoken advocate of your personal experiences. In reality, however, for the majority of people diagnosed with dementia, progression is much slower, and the ability to speak out and contribute to debate, policy and the implementation of policy is potentially feasible for a significant period of time, depending on personal circumstances of course.

So where do we go from here? Organisations like DEEP (Dementia Engagement and Empowerment Project), The Scottish Dementia Working Group, the European Working Group of People with Dementia and Dementia Alliance International are increasingly finding that their membership, made up entirely of people who are living with dementia, are finding a voice, but in comparison to the numbers of people who are actually living with dementia, the proportion is tiny.

Amongst the total number of people living with dementia in England, I fully appreciate that the majority may well prefer to keep themselves to themselves – my dad would almost certainly fit into that category if he was still alive and newly diagnosed. People who are diagnosed at a younger age are often more widely heard voices, not least because individuals in that demographic may feel more confident in using social media and blogging. In the end, I’m not sure it matters so much who speaks up, just so long as every person with dementia has equal opportunity.

Then of course it is down to organisations, both national and local, governmental and private corporates (including dementia conference organisers), to listen, and that is perhaps the hardest part of all. Home truths don’t often sit easily, nor does challenging the status quo, as Kate Swaffer has already proven. But if we are ever to move beyond stigma and discrimination and towards a truly world-class model of support and care for people with dementia, then giving people with dementia a voice and listening to what they have to say really is the only place to start.

Until next time...

You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

LIKE D4Dementia on Facebook