Realising economic and social rights for children with communication and swallowing disability: Sustainable Development Goals 1, 8 and 10

PURPOSE

This commentary describes the economic disempowerment of children with communication and/or swallowing disability and outlines why attending to their economic and social needs is essential for the realisation of the United Nations' Agenda 2030.

RESULT

Children with communication and/or swallowing disability encounter intersectional disempowerment on account of both their disability, and their status as children. In particular, they experience unique barriers to the realisation of their economic and social rights. This presents a number of challenges to the realisation of Agenda 2030, and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Drawing on the broader disability rights and child rights literature, we outline these issues, and describe four empowering solutions, within the scope of this special issue commentary.

CONCLUSION

We describe that speech-language pathologists must interpret the discussion of these issues as a call to action for our profession. This commentary focusses on the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals of, No Poverty (SDG 1), Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8), and Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10), and also addresses the goals of Zero Hunger (SDG 2), Good Health and Well-Being (SDG 3), Quality Education (SDG 4), Gender Equality (SDG 5) and Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17).

Supported Decision-Making in Criminal Proceedings: A Sociolegal Empirical Study

This article outlines a project in which supported decision-making (SDM) and broader support to exercise legal capacity were provided to accused persons with cognitive disabilities in the Australian criminal justice system. The program was developed to advance the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in relation to unfitness to plead laws. The researchers collaborated with three community legal services in three Australian jurisdictions. Four nonlegal “disability support people” were trained to work with accused persons alongside legal counsel to maximize their participation in the trial process and avoid the need for unfitness to plead determinations under current laws. The article draws on qualitative research conducted in the form of interviews with clients, lawyers, and support persons. The findings provide an evidence base for implementing SDM for persons with disabilities in the criminal justice system. It also helps answer the question of whether unfitness to plead laws should be repealed in pursuit of a “universally accessible” justice system in line with the CRPD.

Right to legal capacity in therapeutic jurisprudence: Insights from critical disability theory and the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities

This article addresses whether autonomy is being adequately protected within therapeutic jurisprudence models. It first outlines the history and theory of therapeutic jurisprudence - noting that protection for autonomy has been theorised as a key component of therapeutic jurisprudence. It then examines therapeutic jurisprudence in light of critical disability theory and identifies that traditional therapeutic models, which often prioritises the decision-making of professionals, can undermine the autonomy of the individual. The article then describes the protection for autonomy provided by the right to legal capacity in Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. An analysis is undertaken of practical examples of where therapeutic jurisprudence falls short of the demands of Article 12. Finally, the article presents solutions for how therapeutic jurisprudence models could better protect autonomy via respect for the right to legal capacity in Article 12.

Gendered denials: Vulnerability created by barriers to legal capacity for women and disabled women

This article explores the vulnerability that is created when legal capacity is denied to women and disabled women. It argues that vulnerability is largely contingent on social constructs - as opposed to being an inherent quality of disability or gender. It discusses barriers to the exercise of legal capacity that women and disabled women experience - such as limitations on reproductive choice, higher rates of substituted decision-making, and unique experiences with forced mental health treatment. It then explores evidence that such barriers are disempowering and can leave women and disabled women vulnerable to abuse and marginalisation. It explores financial, physical and sexual abuse that can occur as a result of this vulnerability. Finally, it concludes that autonomy and power are inextricably linked and can be essential for minimising vulnerability.

Disability Human Rights Clinics as a model for teaching Participatory International Human Rights Lawyering

The Disability Human Rights Clinic (DHRC) was established at Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne, in 2015.  Its supervisors and students conduct legislative and policy reform projects as well as strategic litigation. The DHRC was created by Anna Arstein-Kerslake to address a significant lack of resources in community-based organisations to undertake in-depth legal analysis. It uses an innovative model of clinical legal education to harness the skills of law students to fill that gap and to expose a new generation of lawyers to the emerging field of disability human rights law. In this article, we draw on our experiences running the DHRC to argue that the model it establishes can create significant scholarly output in the human rights field, direct engagement with the community, and rich doctrinal and experiential learning for students.

Future Directions in Supported Decision-Making

Supported decision-making is at the forefront of modern disability research. This is due to Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which creates a state obligation to provide support for the exercise of legal capacity. This turned the practice of supported decision-making into a human rights imperative. Government and funding agencies are increasingly focusing their attention on the area. Researchers are similarly increasing their interest in the field. The impending danger is that the rush of interest in the area will overshadow the original intention of supported decision-making: to ensure that people with cognitive disability are provided with the freedom and the tools to participate as equal citizens and for every individual to be free to direct their own life. This article explores the theoretical foundations of supported decision-making and the evolution of supported decision-making research. It explains the research that is emerging in leading jurisdictions, the United States and Australia, and its potential to transform disability services and laws related to decision-making. Finally, it identifies areas of concern in the direction of such research and provides recommendations for ensuring that supported decision-making remains protective of the rights, will and preferences of people with cognitive disability.