In Australia we often hear about self-advocacy in the context of people with disabilities standing up for their rights, and at times having support to ensure their voices are heard, but what happens when somebody does not have a voice? Advocacy systems often rely on an individual saying “I want an advocate to stand beside me on this issue”. This directive may not be able to be made by people with PIMD. Sometimes it may be difficult to know even what a person’s perspective on an issue is. Does this mean they do not “qualify” for advocacy?
In the UK, becoming increasingly popular is the concept of “non-instructed advocacy”. The Oxfordshire Advocacy Development Group state that “Non-instructed advocacy is a form of advocacy that sets out to support those people who are not able to instruct an advocate or to say what they want for reasons of communication difficulties, lack of comprehension, severe learning disability or dementia” http://www.oadg.org.uk/noninstructed.asp. Rather than a person saying what they want, non-instructed advocacy relies on observation and knowing the person rather than being told. This presents a challenge to common forms of advocacy. It requires really getting to know a person over time, and then knowing how to represent the person without bringing in your own views or agenda, without clear confirmation from the person being represented.
Non-instructed advocacy is not simple, and controversy is attached to it. Lawton (2006) states that “some people argue that this cannot be true advocacy as the person has not asked for this support and this might be one reason for people with high support needs missing out” (p.14). People with PIMD are missing out on advocacy. The voice a person saying “I want to make a complaint” is listened to much more readily than somebody who’s body language is saying “I am not happy with this”. Are people with PIMD not to be listened to because they don’t have a voice?
What is happening around Australia for people with PIMD in the area of advocacy? One example that I can think of is a small organisation whose Board of Management is made up by each resident and their voluntary advocates. The advocates have long-term relationships with these people, and on the Board of the organisation represent both themselves and the resident. Does anybody else know of initiatives that enable advocacy for people with PIMD?
There are few resources around on non-instructed advocacy that I have been able to find. One resource is Lawton, A. (2006). A voice of their own: A toolbox of ideas and information for non-instructed advocacy. Kidderminster: BILD. I claim no expertise in advocacy and would love to know more, particularly if this may be an avenue for improving the lives of people with PIMD.
Author Archives: sheridanforster
Say N/A to N/A (except in menstrual management for men!)
One of the first changes that I set about in one of my workplaces was to get rid of N/A (not assessable) from profiles on people with PIMD. Often I would see reports strewn with “vision: N/A”, “hearing: N/A”, “cognition: N/A”, and “communication: N/A” or worse “communication: nonverbal” (problems with the term nonverbal will be explored another day). All of these areas are assessable and provision of quality services necessitate an understanding of the areas. How can a service say that they are working on providing a service to enhance a person’s quality of life if they do not know answers to these fundamental questions that shape the way a person experiences the world around them?
“Professional” assessment can be very useful for answering these questions but it is not an essential starting point. Not having a professional assessment is not a reasonable excuse for not having basic knowledge about a person. Take vision for example. Anybody can do a very basic vision assessment – we do them every time we meet a person. Does the person make eye contact with you when you are standing two metres away, or only when your face is 30 cm from their’s? Does the person’s eyes follow objects in space, and do they use their eyes to locate objects before grabbing them? Do they recognise photos? In some cases the results may be “the person does not make eye contact or look at objects and further information is needed to know if they can distinguish between light and dark”. “Blind” is also not a sufficient descriptor as the majority of people labelled as blind do have some vision and our responsibility is then to know how to use the vision that they have. Similar everyday functional observations can be made for hearing, cognition, and communication (people very rarely have no hearing, no cognition, and no communication). It is our responsibility to understand the people that we propose to support. It is our responsibility to ensure that people can use the skills they have, however limited the skills may be.
The only acceptable area for N/A is in menstrual management for men!
Writing about a person with PIMD or “all about me”…
Over the past 12 months I have been involved in several conversations regarding the use of first-person in writing. Writing in first person means using the term “I” to refer to the author, for example “I like folk music”, as opposed to third-person “Sheridan likes folk music”. In writing about people with PIMD, writers may be faced with the dilemma of, do I write in first-person or third?
For people with PIMD it may be clear that the person themselves has not “written” the document, however the writer may choose to write the document as if the person was saying it themselves. There is a belief that writing in this way may get the reader to “listen” more to the document and see the person as a person with views and perspectives. This practice is very common in adult disability services. There are many reasons, however, to be extremely cautious about using first-person.
Does “pretending” that the person wrote information further disempower the person? What if what has been written is not in fact true (e.g. “I hate folk music”)? What if what is written about the person may be encouraging responses which deny the person’s rights (e.g. “When I suck my finger, hold my hand down in my lap”)?
Issues of first-person use have been explored by Michael Smull and others involved in person centred planning (thanks to everyone on www.elpnet.net that helped me to navigate this information). Smull and Sanderson wrote that “one of the abuses of person centered planning that can be found with distressing frequency is to change traditional plans from third person to first person and call the result a person centered plan” (see http://www.virtualward.org.uk/silo/files/think-before-you-planpdf.pdf). Smull discourages the use of first-person language unless the person has clearly been involved in what has been written – this means that they have said it using symbolic forms and they have confirmed it on review of the document (he also recommends testing out the ongoing truth of the statement). If first-person is used because the person has expressed it, he recommends that facilitators are very mindful that they haven’t used leading questions to generate the quotes. He suggests that if the writer and all people who know the person are not 100% sure that this is something that the person would say if they could, then using third person is recommended.
I think this is very sound approach. What do you think and how does this reflect practice in your organisation?
What is a profound intellectual and multiple disability?
Finding a definition of profound intellectual disability is by no means easy. In some places, people with PID are people who have an IQ of 20 and under, however, establishing that somebody has this level of intellectual functioning is very difficult. So essentially this definition is not terribly functional in practice because there are few tests that can discriminate this level of ability, in particular when you also throw in physical and sensory impairments as well. Some researchers have chosen an cognitive age equivalency to determine if somebody has a profound ID. These cognitive age equivalencies have varied across researchers and nations with some people reporting it as under 12mths, 24mths, or IDC-10 reporting 3 year equivalence (I am aware of some of the pros and cons of using age equivalency but shant go into it now).
The definition that I find best at the moment is the one by PMLD Network in the UK (in the UK an intellectual disability is called a learning disability):
Children and adults with profound and multiple learning disabilities have more than one disability, the most significant of which is a profound learning disability. All people who have profound and multiple learning disabilities will have great difficulty communicating. Many people will have additional sensory or physical disabilities, complex health needs or mental health difficulties. The combination of these needs and/or the lack of the right support may also affect behaviour.
This definition, though giving a clearer idea of the population, still does not say what it means to have a profound intellectual disability. Having a profound ID means that it is difficult for the person to learn new things. It means it is extremely difficult for them to concentrate, plan, problem solve, and remember. It does not mean that a person can not do these things, but it may take much much longer, and the person may need very different teaching techniques. Sometimes the focus for people with PIMD may not be on trying to teach them a new skill, but on how the people around them support them to do things in a different way (i.e. compensating for the skill deficit). It means that people around the person with a PIMD need to think about different ways that they will share meaning with person. Meaning may not be carried through words, instead meaning may come through actions and experiences.
The “multiple” part of the definition means that the person, in addition to their cognitive impairments, may have physical, sensory, and other health issues. Researchers have reported that the more severe an intellectual disability a person has, the more likely they are to have hearing, vision, physical and health issues such as epilepsy or gastrointestinal issues.
However, despite the cognitive and other difficulties that a person with PIMD has, they are still a person, a family member, a consumer, a friend, and a valuable human being.