Human rights and advocacy

Emma Voglemann, a volunteer for the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR), writes about why human rights are so important for advocates:

For advocates, human rights are a shared language of duty and respect that can be used to achieve good outcomes out of court. The Human Rights Act means that public authorities have a legal obligation to respect human rights when they make any decisions involving a person’s life. Advocates can raise human rights in discussion with a person or public authority and they can use human rights to give older people a voice in decisions about their own life, even if they may not have capacity for that particular issue.

BIHR have worked with older people and advocates to help them understand and benefit from human rights. In our Guide for Older People we encourage older people to know how to utilise their human rights by recognising situations where rights may be at risk and how to seek help. Through our partnership work, those we work with have used the Human Rights Act to achieve real outcomes.

Human rights advocacy in real life: Using the Human Rights Act to challenge blanket use of tilt-back chairs in a nursing home.

Laura is a consultant who works with older people, and having worked with BIHR is a keen proponent of human rights in NHS services. She was visiting a nursing home in London when she saw several residents were effectively trapped in special ‘tilt-back’ chairs. The chairs were being used because they stopped people in the home from trying to get up, falling and hurting themselves.

Sadly, this meant many older people who could walk weren’t able to get up and out of the chairs. Instead they had to wait for staff to come and get them out of the chairs so they could go to the toilet or go and get something to eat. The residents at the home who were previously very independent could no longer choose what they wanted to do with their days, and because they couldn’t walk around very often, they started to find walking very difficult.

Laura was concerned this practice in the home raised human rights issues. She talked to the residents who were kept in the chairs, who told her they felt their dignity and independence was being taken away from them. Laura realised that by not allowing the residents who could walk the freedom to move around, their dignity and autonomy, protected by the right to private life in the Human Rights Act (Article 8) was being risked. She was also concerned that for some of the residents, it might even be inhuman or degrading treatment, which is never allowed under the Human Rights Act (Article 3). Laura raised her concerns with the staff and using human rights language they were able to see that treating all of the residents the same in order to protect the few who needed the tilt-back chairs was not appropriate. Residents who could walk were no longer placed in the tilt back chairs and staff encouraged them to start using their walking skills again.

BIHR’s project work with older people and advocates 

Through partnership projects with older people’s groups, including local branches of Age UK, we have worked to empower older people through training around how to use the language of human rights in their daily lives and to influence service delivery and policy.  

Through this work one group of older people in Derby made a DVD on the issues facing older members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community who live in residential care, which received extremely positive feedback. (Watch the film here). Another group looked at the lack of public toilets and transport links, which helped them collaborate with other groups affected by this issue, such as disabled people and mothers with young children. They raised awareness about this issue and engaged with local officials.

If you’d like to find out more about our work with older people, or to find out more about how advocates can use human rights, check out our resources aimed at advocates and older people. All BIHR’s resources are freely available here.

If, like us, you think human rights are worth protecting, find out how we can stand Together For Human Rights, check out our page: The Human Rights Act: Protect What Protects Us All

Advertisement

Ensuring accountability when older people can’t speak up for themselves

Wendy, a former magistrate, is 81 years old. She has lived in her home for 32 years. Wendy has recently developed severe dementia. Her son John cares for her at home, with the help of the local authority. When social workers ask Wendy about some scratches and bruises she can’t remember how they happened. The social workers decide to visit Wendy when John was out shopping and take Wendy away to a nursing home. They had no authorisation to do this.

When he returned home, John could not find his mum and no one told him where she was. It took John 19 days to find Wendy, and only after he had asked a lawyer to write to the council to try and locate her. John wanted to visit his mother, but because of the unexplained injuries, the council restricted John and Wendy’s contact, despite not investigating how the injuries had occurred. John and Wendy were not allowed to meet unsupervised for more than a year.

After sixteen months, the council dropped its (uninvestigated) allegations of abuse against John. The family decided to take court action because they believed keeping Wendy in the care home was a breach of her right to liberty, which is protected by the Human Rights Act (Article 5).

The judge found the way the council had handled their concerns about Wendy’s welfare was ‘woefully inadequate’. They had not investigated whether she was at risk before they took her away from her home, and they had not got the correct authorisation to keep her in a care home. Therefore, the local authority had breached Wendy’s right to liberty. In addition, the judge said the council had breached her right to respect for her private life in her own home, protected by the HRA in Article 8. This right also protects Wendy’s right to a family life with her son, John, which was breached when their visits were restricted. Wendy and John are now free to visit whenever they want.

To learn more of the work of the British Institute of Human Rights please visit their web site here https://www.bihr.org.uk/

Helping an older couple live in the same care home

Dora and Simon had been married for 59 years. Dora was blind and had recently developed Alzheimer’s. She and Simon were injured in a fall at home, and Simon was no longer able to care for her while he recovered. During this time, Dora was moved into a local publically funded nursing home.

It became clear that Dora would have to stay in a nursing home, but Simon visited her every day. However, their relationship was threatened when the local authority decided to move Dora into a permanent nursing home that was too far away for Simon and their children to visit.

 

Simon contacted Counsel and Care. They helped Simon to challenge the decision to move Dora on the basis that his and Dora’s right to family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act was threatened by the move and the local authority needed to consider this right when making their decision. This helped Simon to persuade social services to allow Dora to remain in the nursing home close to her family and to Simon.

Source: BIHR & EDF ‘Human Rights and Equality in the Voluntary Sector’ (2010)

Reuniting separated older couple

Beryl and Richard Driscoll had been married for over 65 years. They had spent very little time apart and by 2006 she was blind and he could not walk unaided. He was her eyes and she helped him to walk. When Mr Driscoll fell ill, the local authority moved him to a residential care home. Mrs Driscoll was not allowed to go with him, as she did not fit the criteria, and they only saw each other twice a week for 7 months.

Speaking to the media, she said ‘We have never been separated in all our years and for it to happen now, when we need each other so much, is so upsetting. I am lost without him – we were a partnership’.

A public campaign launched by the family, supported by the media and various human rights experts, including BIHR, and older people’s organisations, and independent advocates argued that the local authority had breached the couple’s right to respect for family life (Article 8). The authority agreed to reverse its decision and offered the wife a subsidised place so that she could join her husband in the care home.

See here for further stories about how human rights protect us all. https://www.bihr.org.uk/

Getting justice for a war veteran unlawfully detained by the Council

Peter is a 91-year-old veteran of the Second World War. Peter has health problems, including dementia, but he likes living in his own home. He sees friends and enjoys looking after his pet cat Fluffy.

Some of Peter’s friends became concerned that Peter was being financially abused and they were worried about his ability to look after himself. His local council then took action which meant he was held in a locked unit for 17 months. Although the records said Peter went with them voluntarily, he was clearly reluctant to do so, and distressed. Facts are disputed but he is said to have been wearing his dressing gown at the time, without trousers or pyjama bottoms.

This case went to Court, where it was decided that the council’s treatment of Peter amounted to breaches of his human rights to liberty and to respect for private and family life (Articles 5 and 8 of the HRA). These breaches were said to be made worse because had they not happened, Peter would have continued to live at home, where he was happy, with support. The council ended up giving Peter £60,000 in damages for false imprisonment. But most importantly, Peter was able to return home, reunited with Fluffy and his friends. He now has the right care support package and is reportedly happy and contented.

To read more stories like this visit https://www.bihr.org.uk/

Preventing an older woman being moved from hospital to residential care against her wishes

Janet was staying in hospital after a stroke. She had been a prisoner of war in Japan during World War Two, which had led to some mental health problems. Hospital staff saw Janet re-enacting experiences from her time as a POW, like washing her clothes with rocks and hanging them out to dry on the hospital fence. After some time, hospital staff wanted to move Janet to a care home, as it would be cheaper to provide care there.

Janet’s advocate, Steve, was concerned about this decision as Janet had said she wanted to return to her own home. The hospital was pushing for the care home placement because of the mental health issues Janet was displaying. However, working with Janet, Steve thought that it was being in the hospital’s institutional setting that was causing her to relive the past, and that a care home would make things worse.

Steve accessed human rights training from BIHR. During his advocacy with the hospital and local authority Steve was able to refer to Janet’s human right to respect for private life under the Human Rights Act (Article 8), which includes having a say in decisions that affect us, and protecting mental well-being. He explained how putting Janet into residential care could compromise her human rights, whereas supporting her to return home as she wanted could respect her human rights and help her recover. Following Steve’s human rights advocacy, the local authority decided it was able to support Janet’s care at home.

In addition to protecting Janet’s human rights, Janet was supported to contribute to her own decisions about where she should live and is a classic example of how advocates work to ensure people’s voices are heard in decisions affecting their lives and well being.

This story was provided by our amazing colleagues working at the British Institute for Human Rights find our more about their work here https://www.bihr.org.uk/