ChatterBank5 mins ago
rights to privacy of mentaly handicapped people
i know someone that works for their local mental health authority as a handyman kinda thing.
he says that theres a man that's disabled mentally and physically but because of his human rights he has to left alone when bathing.
but every week when he's left alone he smashes things up and causes roughly �500 (sometimes more, sometimes less) of damage every week. . . . which comes out of tax payers pockets.
should people like him be alowed to be left alone because its not only the cost of the damage, he could realy hurt himself.
and theres places that care for people like hm across the country so in total there could be thousands of people like him causing just as much damage every week.
he says that theres a man that's disabled mentally and physically but because of his human rights he has to left alone when bathing.
but every week when he's left alone he smashes things up and causes roughly �500 (sometimes more, sometimes less) of damage every week. . . . which comes out of tax payers pockets.
should people like him be alowed to be left alone because its not only the cost of the damage, he could realy hurt himself.
and theres places that care for people like hm across the country so in total there could be thousands of people like him causing just as much damage every week.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nix-j-c. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Probably, bednobs because he is frequently called upon to repair the damage caused by the poor soul.
This is yet another example of Human Rights legislation being cited to circumvent what should be just plain common sense. The original European Convention on Human Rights (upon which the UK�s 1998 Act is based) was drafted just after WW2 and was principally designed to prevent unacceptable behaviour towards citizens being exercised by over-zealous states.
We now have the situation in the UK where instances such as that described supposedly fall foul of the law, but no protection is provided from an over-zealous state where it is needed (e.g. retention of fingerprint and DNA information of innocent people, proposals that travellers must inform the state of their travel arrangements, and so on).
This is yet another example of Human Rights legislation being cited to circumvent what should be just plain common sense. The original European Convention on Human Rights (upon which the UK�s 1998 Act is based) was drafted just after WW2 and was principally designed to prevent unacceptable behaviour towards citizens being exercised by over-zealous states.
We now have the situation in the UK where instances such as that described supposedly fall foul of the law, but no protection is provided from an over-zealous state where it is needed (e.g. retention of fingerprint and DNA information of innocent people, proposals that travellers must inform the state of their travel arrangements, and so on).
but noone can do anything because of his human rights. it goes on every day.
fair enough if people are able to bathe themselves properly andcan be trusted to not destroy things they should be allowed privacy but if they could harm themselves they need to be watched and forms of restraint that neither harm the nurse or resident need to be used.
fair enough if people are able to bathe themselves properly andcan be trusted to not destroy things they should be allowed privacy but if they could harm themselves they need to be watched and forms of restraint that neither harm the nurse or resident need to be used.
You can only restrain someone who poses either a risk to themselves or others. It migt be worth them trying to look at why he does this (eg I used to work with a bloke who smashed 3 toilet bowls in a month by repetedly banging the lid up and down with force. He had autism and had lived in an institution for years. We asked someone who used to work in the institution he came from - they didnt have toilet seats. We took it off, no more problems).
If he wants to be alone when bathing and is able to do it withous posing himself a risk then he should be allowed to. It may need to be the bathroom thats modified to suit his needs (eg no mirror or a plastic one which will not pose risk).
If he wants to be alone when bathing and is able to do it withous posing himself a risk then he should be allowed to. It may need to be the bathroom thats modified to suit his needs (eg no mirror or a plastic one which will not pose risk).
If he smashes other stuff then probably plastic. I worked in a place where everything breakable was screwed down, tellys in cabinets screwed to the floor, velcro on the curtains so didnt rip when pulled down, picture frames screwed to the walls. Even the windows were perspex and not glass. There are ways around most things with out making things crap for people. Most people who have these kinds of behaviours don't do it just cos they think it might be a bit of a laugh. can you imagine living in a world where you were so frustrated that you acted like that? And no one understood what was wrong? Put yourself in someone who has to be cared fors shoes for just a minute. I'd be the most challenging person alive!
I don't think thats its about being able to be trusted. Rights aren't something that should be taken away as punishment which is what that statment implies. It's about looking at whats not working and finding ways to alter support and environment so it works for people. I know that sounds all airy fairy but it can and does work. There are very few people whos challenging behaviour can not be resolved by them getting the right support.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.