What rights for vulnerable adults?

The issue of Ashley X and of disability rights is an emotive and complicated issue (see Solidarity 3/104 and 3/105). I agree with Chris Leary when he that the issues are too big to be dealt with in one article and indeed in relation to one issue.

When I first read about Ashley I couldn't help wondering as Chris does - would that happen here? I came to the conclusion that it probably wouldn't and I admit this sat comfortably with me.

Our health system is far from perfect, and while we know cost considerations are increasingly important it is very different from the American system where if you can pay for it you can have it done. From what I have read, the surgery that Ashley's parents undertook was less concerned with health risks and more about what they considered quality of life issues for Ashley as she grew older.

From what I have read, and my experience of working with people like Ashley, I am not sure that I agree with the parents' decision.

I find it difficult that the parents' rights as carers have completely overridden Ashley's rights. Indeed in the learning disabilities team where I work our discussion was all about Ashley and how she seemed to have got lost in the process. As a serious advocate of the social model of disability I am aware of the reality of the many unpaid carers and parents that fight for the best that can be achieved in a dog-eat-dog world.

Despite all of this I feel that Ashley and other disabled children and adults do have rights. They have rights that may conflict with the rights of their parents. They have rights despite the fact that they may always be dependent on others.

The new Mental Incapacity Bill which is due to be enacted in April this year will affect people like Ashley living in the UK. In my opinion it is a progressive piece of legislation and much needed as there has been a lack of focus on "vulnerable adults" especially in Mental Health legislation where the risk has always been portrayed as being from "them" to "us".

The legislation focuses as its title suggests, on capacity and incapacity. A vulnerable adult under law doesn't just cover people with learning disabilities but people made vulnerable by their mental health, disability, illness or drug/alcohol addiction. Under this law consent is dealt with as something that is variable. Not only can it change according to the capacity of the individual but also according to the complexity of the decision. Whenever someone who may lack capacity needs to make an important decision then it is required that a "best interests" decision is made. If the individual has no family involved, or if there is conflict, then an independent advocate is brought in.

But the legislation does not address the issue of resources. As usual the government has put aside a woeful amount of money to fund any independent advocacy service which will in turn lead to poorly paid and trained staff.

But the idea of an independent advocate is progressive. It may be hard for people like Ashley to effectively communicate their wishes, but that does not mean that they don't have opinions, or that their preferences should be ignored. It may take time, and skill to be able to understand what some vulnerable people want for themselves, but in many cases this will be possible, given sufficient resources.

Unfortunately, in today's society the immediate family are often expected to provide cheap or free care for vulnerable adults, irrespective of their ability or willingness to do so.

The views of those closest to the vulnerable adult should, of course be considered. There needs to be adequate support, and where necessary independent advocates for carers as well, although this is unlikely to be provided under the current system. We should recognise that there is a balance to be sought.

The care of vulnerable people should be the responsibility of society as a whole, not restricted to a "problem" of their immediate family. But it will take more than this current bill to make that a reality. Consistent campaigning, and ultimately a society that does not value people only in monetary terms will be necessary before the views of the most vulnerable people will be heard.

Lynne Moffat, Lewisham

Union merger: oppose though we agree?

Martin Thomas's position on the T&G/Amicus merger seems to be that we should oppose it even if we support it - you think I'm joking? Martin says this: "Even if you think that the merger on the current terms would, on balance, be a step forward, there would still be a strong case for voting against those terms". So we vote against something we agree with: an excellent way to ensure that activists within both unions take us seriously!

And why would we want to do that? Martin explains, using a dialectic logic that plainly eludes simpletons like myself: "The top officials want this merger. If the current terms are voted down by members demanding more democracy, then they will make concessions rather than abandon the project".

Martin's case is so wacky it's not even wrong: the fact is that the present terms (contained in the "Instrument of Amalgamation" to be voted on this month, is not particularly undemocratic, and is certainly no worse that the rules of either the existing T&G or Amicus. Within the T&G some of us attempted to use the debate to raise issues like the need for a more accountable industrial
committee structure and also attempted to address the current regional structure that exacerbates cronyism and, sometimes, downright corruption within the union. We failed to win our case and the Instrument of Amalgamation retains, broadly, the present structure of the T&G, including excessive regional powers.

But we didn't lose because the bureaucracy stifled us; we lost because the majority of activists (including most of the left) don't agree with us, or simply don't see these issues as important. Voting against the merger isn't going to change that: long-term, patient work within the union will. But to engage in that sort of work we need to be seen as serious people - i.e. not the sort of people who vote against things we actually agree with.

My knowledge of the T&G is considerably greater than my knowledge of Amicus, but from a T&G perspective I can assure Martin that most activists are excited by the prospect of a larger, stronger union with guaranteed resources (at least 5% of its annual income, rising to 10% within a few years) earmarked for organising campaigns. We should encourage that enthusiasm, not pour cold water on it.

The point about the election of officials is not that they shouldn't be elected: it's that it is far more important to have functioning lay-member committees accountable to the members in the industries they represent. Martin is right that "a union of two million members (can't) be run solely by lay officials who meet, organise, and administer union affairs in their evening after work": but that tatement of the obvious doesn't answer the point that our aim must be to empower the rank and file within the union and to break down
the distinction between officers and members.

The way to do that is to build industrial committees composed of genuine, elected, workplace representatives (not the "committee jockeys" who all too often dominate these bodies at the moment), and which hold the full-timers to account in all negotiations with the bosses. The principle that the full-timers are the servants of the members and must do their (the members') bidding, is the crucial question. What is required is elections where appropriate (those
officials with a "political" role), and the proper line management of those officers who are, essentially, functionaries.

The creation of a rank-and-file controlled, accountable industrial structure for the New Union must be our central task at the moment: a good start has been made by the contributions of T&G General Executive Committee member Tom Cashman and Passenger Transport national officer Graham Stevenson, whose thoughts on these matters can be read at www.theworkersunion.org

Cashman and Stevenson are in a minority on the left within the T&G in addressing these issues, but they are absolutely right to do so. Martin's position, by contrast, seems to be the worst sort of gesture politics, and would not only isolate us from the serious left within the T&G (sometimes that might be an unfortunate necessity): it would also distract us from the central issues that must be addressed within the new union.

Jim Denham, Birmingham

No bullying!

I must object to one of Robin Sivapalan's comment in his article 'A cultural car crash' (Solidarity 3/105). He says that Shilpa Shetty (the Bollywood star and Big Brother contestant) "probably deserves more than a bit of bullying". As a union representative who deals with people who have had their lives devastated by the effects of bullying at work, I believe no one "deserves" bullying. Even those who inhabit the unreal world of reality TV.

Maria Exall, Southwark