“Adults at risk”: “vulnerability” by any other name?
| Date | 12 February 2018 |
| Pages | 47-58 |
| Published date | 12 February 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-07-2017-0029 |
| Author | Laura Pritchard-Jones |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
“Adults at risk”:“vulnerability”by any
other name?
Laura Pritchard-Jones
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore and critique the conceptual and terminological shift –
particularly from “vulnerability”to “adult at risk”–in adult safeguarding under the Care Act 2014 and the
Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper compares the notion of the vulnerable adult in safeguarding,
with the notion of an adult at risk under the Care Act 2014 and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act
2014 and questions to what extent such a shift addresses existing criticisms of “vulnerability”.
Findings –The paper criticises the notion of the “vulnerable adult”for perpetuating the stigma associated
with an impairment or disability, and for the types of legal and policy responses deemed appropriate under
such an understanding of vulnerability. While efforts to replace the term “vulnerable adult”with “adult at risk”
are, to some extent, to be welcomed, “adult at risk”under the legislation relies on the same characteristicsfor
which the “vulnerable adult”has been criticised. Nevertheless, the safeguarding provisions under the two
Acts have made some strides forward in comparison to their legal and policy predecessors and the notion of
the “vulnerable adult”.
Originality/value –This paper’s originality and value lie in its scrutiny of the notion of “vulnerability”in adult
safeguarding, in comparison to the newer terminology of an “adult at risk”, whilst also suggesting that in
important respects –in relation to the interventions deemed appropriate where an adult is perceived to beat
risk –the two pieces of legislation are a marked improvement on their predecessors. It also offers some
thoughts as to how criticisms of the new legislation may be overcome.
Keywords Safeguarding, Adult at risk, Care Act 2014, Vulnerable adult, Inherent jurisdiction,
Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014
Paper type General review
Introduction
“Vulnerability”is a term that has long been deployed in various laws and policies, from groups
considered “vulnerable”in health care research and resource allocation, to witnesses considered
“vulnerable”in the criminal justice system. This paper focuses on the term “vulnerable adult”
within adult safeguarding law and policy in England and Wales and aims to scrutinise its
development. First, the paper criticises the implementation of the notion of vulnerability in adult
safeguarding on two fronts: for perpetuating the stigma associated with an impairment or
disability, and in addition, for the types of legal and policy responses deemed appropriate under
such an understanding of vulnerability.
The paper then moves on to a consideration of the terminological shift from “vulnerable adult”to
“adult at risk”under the Care Act 2014, and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014,
and questions to what extent such a shift addresses these criticisms. It is suggested that while
these efforts to replace the term “vulnerable adult”with “adult at risk”are, to some extent, to be
welcomed, “adult at risk”in both statutes, and the secondary legislation, is reliant on the same
characteristics and elements for which “vulnerability”has previously been criticised in adult
safeguarding. Despite this, it is argued that the safeguarding provisions under the Care Act 2014,
and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 have nonetheless made some strides
forward in comparison to their legal and policy predecessors. While criticisms of the terms
Received 28 July 2017
Revised 21 November 2017
11 December 2017
Accepted 13 December 2017
The author would like to thank the
anonymous reviewers and Paul
Skowron for their comments on
an earlier version of this paper.
Any errors or omissions are
author’s own.
Laura Pritchard-Jones is a
Lecturer in Law at Keele
University, Keele, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-07-2017-0029 VOL. 20 NO. 1 2018, pp. 47-58, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 47
To continue reading
Request your trial