Guardianship and supported decision making in Israel
| Date | 06 March 2017 |
| Published date | 06 March 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/AMHID-11-2016-0040 |
| Pages | 54-64 |
| Author | Rebecca Naomi Davies,Shirli Werner,Amanda Sinai |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Learning & intellectual disabilities |
Guardianship and supported decision
making in Israel
Rebecca Naomi Davies, Shirli Werner and Amanda Sinai
Abstract
Purpose –Recent research has promoted the use of supported decision making, in contrast to historical
methods of substitute decision making when working with people with intellectual disabilities. In Israel,
people with disabilities are protected by the Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law of 1962, which was
amended in 2016. The purpose of this paper is to consider how these recent changes are perceived by the
professionals in Israel.
Design/methodology/approach –Professionals with experience in policy making, law, social work and
with direct experience working with people with intellectual disabilities (ID) were interviewed using
semi-structured interviews and one focus group. Interviews were recorded and subsequently coded and
analysed qualitatively.
Findings –Two major themes were identified. These were: the law and its phrasing, and changing culture.
Findings highlight the process of change within guardianship law and practice and the challenges in
implementation encountered so far and anticipated in the future.
Originality/value –Guardianship laws are changing in many states and the challenges to implementation of
supported decision-making in these countries have been echoed in this study. Functional models to
allow implementation of supported decision-making have not yet been strongly evidenced. It is hoped
that this research may provide a springboard for further study into legal capacity and guardianship issues in
Israel and elsewhere.
Keywords Israel, Intellectual disability, Guardianship, Law, Legal capacity, Supported decision making
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The State of Israel is a relatively recent and continuously evolving establishment. Mass
immigration has brought health policy models from Western countries, and applied them to what
could be considered as a more developing country. Coexistence of religions and differing
cultures present additional challenges for policymakers (Halperin et al., 2005). Current
developments in health policy include recent amendments to guardianship law for people with
disabilities which impair legal capacity (Cahana and Yalon-Chamovitz, 2015). This research will
consider the perceived impact of these changes on the practice of stakeholders in the care of
people with intellectual disabilities (ID).
Background
The process of guardianship appointment in Israel is described in the Capacity and Guardianship
Law (Bizchut, 2016), which has remained fairly static since its inception in 1962. According to this
law, if a person is deemed to lack legal capacity, then the court will appoint a guardian to act as a
“substitute decision-maker”as either a personal or financial guardian. Financial guardians will
deal with issues pertaining to management of money, while personal guardians are responsible
for all other aspects (Melamed et al., 2010). This guardian, in most cases, will be a family member
(Melamed et al., 2007), but if none can be found, then a corporate guardian from an organisation
who specialises in this area can be appointed (Werner and Chabany, 2016).
Received 29 November 2016
Revised 3 March 2017
Accepted 6 April 2017
Rebecca Naomi Davies is a
Medical Student at the
University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, UK.
Shirli Werner is a Senior
Lecturer at the Paul Baerwald
School of Social Work and
Social Welfare, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, Israel.
Amanda Sinai is a Consultant
Psychiatrist in Intellectual
Disabilities in the Department
of Psychiatry, Sheba Medical
Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
PAGE54
j
ADVANCESIN MENTAL HEALTH AND INTELLECTUALDISABILITIES
j
VOL. 11 NO. 2 2017, pp.54-64, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2044-1282 DOI 10.1108/AMHID-11-2016-0040
To continue reading
Request your trial