A changing paradigm of protection of vulnerable adults and its implications for the Netherlands

H. N. Stelma-Roorda, C. Blankman, M. Antokolskaia
{"title":"A changing paradigm of protection of vulnerable adults and its implications for the Netherlands","authors":"H. N. Stelma-Roorda, C. Blankman, M. Antokolskaia","doi":"10.5553/FENR/.000037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the phrase ‘protection of adults’, the Convention on the International Protection of Adults refers in article 1(1) to ‘adults who, by reason of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are not in a position to protect their interests’. The perception of how the interests of these vulnerable adults should be protected has changed over time. There has been a shift in the protection paradigm, from paternalism and a substitute decision-making approach to autonomy and a supportive decision-making human rights-based approach. In the framework of this shift, in addition to traditional adult guardianship measures, new instruments have been developed allowing adults to play a greater role in the protection of their (future) interests. This has also been the case in the Netherlands, where adults in the course of the last decade have acquired the possibility to make a so-called living will, internationally better known as a continuing, enduring or lasting power of attorney. The aim of this article is to discuss this instrument, in comparison with the traditional adult guardianship measures currently in force in the Netherlands, from the perspective of the new protection paradigm based on a human rights approach. To this end, in the following paragraph, we will try to delineate the historical context of the new protection paradigm and the human rights approach. Then in paragraph 3, we will focus on the influence of article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the controversy around its implications for the protection paradigm. In paragraph 4, we will provide an outline of the attempt to go beyond this controversy – the so-called alternate framework developed by Martin et al. In paragraph 5 we will elaborate on what kind of measures could meet the requirements of article 12 of the UNCRPD and what kind of safeguards should be incorporated therein. In paragraph 6, we will deal with the question whether the traditional adult guardianship measures in the Netherlands, based on substitute decision-making schemes, are compliant with the new protection paradigm. In paragraph 7, we will discuss the potential of the living will as an instrument of supportive decision-making. The conclusion will comprise some final remarks and suggestions for the future.","PeriodicalId":167265,"journal":{"name":"The Family in Law","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Family in Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5553/FENR/.000037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the phrase ‘protection of adults’, the Convention on the International Protection of Adults refers in article 1(1) to ‘adults who, by reason of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are not in a position to protect their interests’. The perception of how the interests of these vulnerable adults should be protected has changed over time. There has been a shift in the protection paradigm, from paternalism and a substitute decision-making approach to autonomy and a supportive decision-making human rights-based approach. In the framework of this shift, in addition to traditional adult guardianship measures, new instruments have been developed allowing adults to play a greater role in the protection of their (future) interests. This has also been the case in the Netherlands, where adults in the course of the last decade have acquired the possibility to make a so-called living will, internationally better known as a continuing, enduring or lasting power of attorney. The aim of this article is to discuss this instrument, in comparison with the traditional adult guardianship measures currently in force in the Netherlands, from the perspective of the new protection paradigm based on a human rights approach. To this end, in the following paragraph, we will try to delineate the historical context of the new protection paradigm and the human rights approach. Then in paragraph 3, we will focus on the influence of article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the controversy around its implications for the protection paradigm. In paragraph 4, we will provide an outline of the attempt to go beyond this controversy – the so-called alternate framework developed by Martin et al. In paragraph 5 we will elaborate on what kind of measures could meet the requirements of article 12 of the UNCRPD and what kind of safeguards should be incorporated therein. In paragraph 6, we will deal with the question whether the traditional adult guardianship measures in the Netherlands, based on substitute decision-making schemes, are compliant with the new protection paradigm. In paragraph 7, we will discuss the potential of the living will as an instrument of supportive decision-making. The conclusion will comprise some final remarks and suggestions for the future.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
易受伤害成年人保护模式的变化及其对荷兰的影响
《国际保护成年人公约》第1条第1款中“保护成年人”一词指的是“由于其个人能力有缺陷或不足而不能保护其利益的成年人”。随着时间的推移,对如何保护这些弱势成年人利益的看法发生了变化。保护模式已发生转变,从家长式作风和替代决策方式转向自主和基于人权的支持性决策方式。在这一转变的框架内,除了传统的成人监护措施外,还制定了新的文书,使成年人能够在保护其(未来)利益方面发挥更大的作用。荷兰的情况也是如此。在过去十年中,荷兰的成年人已经可以立一份所谓的生前遗嘱(living will),在国际上更广为人知的名称是持续、持久或持久的委托书(power of attorney)。本文的目的是从基于人权方法的新保护范式的角度,与荷兰现行的传统成人监护措施进行比较,讨论这一文书。为此,在下一段中,我们将试图描述新的保护范式和人权方法的历史背景。然后,在第3段中,我们将重点讨论《残疾人权利公约》(《残疾人权利公约》)第12条的影响,以及围绕其对保护范式的影响而产生的争议。在第4段中,我们将概述一种超越这种争议的尝试——即马丁等人开发的所谓替代框架。在第5段中,我们将详细阐述什么样的措施可以满足《公约》第12条的要求,以及应该在其中纳入什么样的保障措施。在第6段中,我们将讨论荷兰基于替代决策计划的传统成人监护措施是否符合新的保护范例的问题。在第7段中,我们将讨论生前遗嘱作为辅助决策工具的潜力。结束语将包括一些最后的评论和对未来的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
L’évolution de la jurisprudence de la Commission européenne des droits de l’homme et de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme sur la question de l’avortement Regulating posthumous reproduction in the Netherlands and the UK De positie van de niet-begeleide minderjarige vreemdeling binnen de hervorming van het Europees asielstelsel Legal tools for amicable dispute resolution in Belgian (family) courts Beschuldigingen van seksueel kindermisbruik tijdens een civielrechtelijk geschil over kinderen: aard, context en afhandeling
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1