Paternalism or proportionality? Experiences and outcomes of the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007
| Date | 04 February 2014 |
| Pages | 5-16 |
| Published date | 04 February 2014 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-02-2013-0006 |
| Author | Michael Preston-Shoot,Sally Cornish |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection |
Paternalism or proportionality?
Experiences and outcomes of the
Michael Preston-Shoot and Sally Cornish
Professor Michael Preston-
Shoot is an Executive Dean,
Faculty of Health & Social
Sciences, based at Faculty of
Health & Social Sciences,
University of Bedfordshire,
Luton, UK.
Sally Cornish is a Senior
Lecturer, based at Applied
Social Studies, University
of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report the findings from research into the outcomes of adult
protection in Scotland, with particular focus on how service users, family members and service delivery
professionals perceive the effectiveness of the protection orders in the Adult Support and Protection
Design/methodology/approach – The study comprised analysis of Adult Protection Committee biennial
reports on implementation of the 2007 Act to the Scottish Government, key informant interviews
and workshops with professionals involved in adult protection leadership and practice, and case study
interviews with service users, family members and practitioners.
Findings – Concerns about the potential for paternalistic practice and excessive use of the protection
orders within the 2007 Act have not materialised. The principle of proportionality appears to be firmly
embedded in adult protection practice. Service delivery professionals, service users and family members
remain acutely aware of the tensions between autonomy and protection but point to beneficial outcomes
for adults at risk from the careful use of protection orders, especially banning orders.
Research limitations/implications – Only ten case studies were able to be included in the study.
However, the use of mixed methods enabled triangulation of the findings. Common themes emerge from
across the data sources. The findings also resonate with conclusions drawn by other researchers.
Practical implications – The paper identifies outcomes and challenges in respect of protecting adults at
risk in Scotland. Strengths and limitations of the 2007 Act are identified.
Originality/value – The paper offers a formal evaluation of the outcome of protection orders for adults at
risk in Scotland. The findings are of wider policy relevance given the debates on how to legislate for adult
safeguarding in England and Wales.
Keywords Adult protection, Scotland, Outcomes, Autonomy, Paternalism, Protection orders
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In England (Department of Health, 2012, 2013) and Wales (Welsh Government, 2013) proposals
have been drafted for the reform of adult social care legislation, including the arrangements for
safeguarding adults at risk. Following the Law Commission’s (2011) lead, powers to remove
a person under section 47, National Assistance Act 1948[1] would be repealed if proposals in
the Care Bill for England and the Social Services and Well-Being (Wales) Bill are enacted.
However, the proposals for England do not currently contain new protective powers[2]. On
balance, despite noting unspecified “obvious dangers”, the Joint Committee responsible
for scrutinising the draft Bill (Joint Committee on the Draft Care and Support Bill, 2013)
The research was funded by the
Scottish Government and
commissioned from EKOSGEN
and the University of Bedfordshire.
Staff at EKOSGEN (Economic
Development and Regeneration
Consultants) based in Glasgow
were centrally involved in the
preparation of the tender, and
subsequently in data collection,
data analysis and report writing
alongside the authors of this
paper. The views expressed in this
paper are the authors’ own and do
not necessarily represent or imply
Scottish Government policy.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-02-2013-0006 VOL. 16 NO. 1 2014, pp. 5-16, CEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAGE 5
To continue reading
Request your trial