'Vulnerable Monsters': Constructions of Dementia in the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care.

Kristina Chelberg
{"title":"'Vulnerable Monsters': Constructions of Dementia in the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care.","authors":"Kristina Chelberg","doi":"10.1007/s11196-023-09979-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper argues that while regulatory frameworks in aged care authorise restraints to protect vulnerable persons living with dementia from harm, they also serve as normalising practices to control challenging monstrous Others. This argument emerges out of an observed unease in aged care discourse where older people living with dementia are described as 'vulnerable', while dementia behaviours are described as 'challenging'. Using narrative analysis on a case study from the Final Report of the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (RCAC), this paper investigates how the RCAC (re)produced constructions of persons with dementia as 'vulnerable monsters'. Drawing upon monstrous theory about 'unruly and leaky' bodies, extracts from the case study reveal how the RCAC repeated and reinforced monstrous constructions of dementia. Dementia behaviours, particularly 'wandering', were constructed through a dehumanising crisis frame that produced 'challenging' bodies and legitimised 'last resort' normalising practices, such as physical and chemical restraints. In failing to resist monstrous constructions of dementia behaviours, the RCAC accepted and authorised a regime of scaled responses leading to restrictive practices for control of challenging bodies in aged care. Although dementia care and restrictive practices received substantial attention in the RCAC, this paper reveals a missed opportunity for deeper review of institutionalised use of restraints that has relevance for ongoing reform of Australian aged care following conclusion of the RCAC.</p>","PeriodicalId":44376,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE SEMIOTICS OF LAW-REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE SEMIOTIQUE JURIDIQUE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10011757/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE SEMIOTICS OF LAW-REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE SEMIOTIQUE JURIDIQUE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09979-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This paper argues that while regulatory frameworks in aged care authorise restraints to protect vulnerable persons living with dementia from harm, they also serve as normalising practices to control challenging monstrous Others. This argument emerges out of an observed unease in aged care discourse where older people living with dementia are described as 'vulnerable', while dementia behaviours are described as 'challenging'. Using narrative analysis on a case study from the Final Report of the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (RCAC), this paper investigates how the RCAC (re)produced constructions of persons with dementia as 'vulnerable monsters'. Drawing upon monstrous theory about 'unruly and leaky' bodies, extracts from the case study reveal how the RCAC repeated and reinforced monstrous constructions of dementia. Dementia behaviours, particularly 'wandering', were constructed through a dehumanising crisis frame that produced 'challenging' bodies and legitimised 'last resort' normalising practices, such as physical and chemical restraints. In failing to resist monstrous constructions of dementia behaviours, the RCAC accepted and authorised a regime of scaled responses leading to restrictive practices for control of challenging bodies in aged care. Although dementia care and restrictive practices received substantial attention in the RCAC, this paper reveals a missed opportunity for deeper review of institutionalised use of restraints that has relevance for ongoing reform of Australian aged care following conclusion of the RCAC.

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
“易受伤害的怪物”:澳大利亚皇家老年护理委员会痴呆症的构建。
本文认为,虽然老年护理的监管框架授权限制措施,以保护痴呆症患者免受伤害,但它们也可以作为控制具有挑战性的可怕他人的正常做法。这一论点源于在老年护理话语中观察到的不安,老年痴呆症患者被描述为“易受伤害”,而痴呆症行为被描述为具有“挑战性”。本文对澳大利亚皇家老年护理质量与安全委员会(RCAC)的最终报告中的一项案例研究进行了叙述性分析,调查了RCAC如何将痴呆症患者塑造成“脆弱的怪物”。根据关于“不守规矩和渗漏”身体的可怕理论,案例研究的摘录揭示了RCAC是如何重复和强化痴呆症的可怕结构的。痴呆症行为,特别是“流浪”,是通过一种非人化的危机框架构建的,这种框架产生了“具有挑战性”的身体,并使“最后手段”的正常化做法合法化,如物理和化学约束。由于未能抵制痴呆症行为的可怕构建,加拿大皇家癌症研究中心接受并授权了一种规模化反应制度,导致对老年护理中具有挑战性的身体的控制采取限制性做法。尽管痴呆症护理和限制性做法在RCAC中受到了极大的关注,但本文揭示了一个错失的机会,即对限制性措施的制度化使用进行更深入的审查,这与RCAC结束后澳大利亚老年护理的持续改革有关。
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
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The International Journal for the Semiotics of Law is the leading international journal in Legal Semiotics worldwide.   We are pathfinders in mapping the contours of Legal Semiotics.   We provide a high quality blind peer-reviewing process to all the papers via our online submission platform with well-established expert reviewers from all over the world. Our boards reflect this vision and mission.   We welcome submissions in English or in French.   We bridge different fields of expertise to allow a percolation of experience and a sharing of this advanced knowledge from individual, collective and/or institutional fields of competence.   We publish original and high quality papers that should ideally critique, apply or otherwise engage with semiotics or related theory and models of analyses, or with rhetoric, history of political and legal discourses, philosophy of language, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, deconstruction and all types of semiotics analyses including visual semiotics. We also welcome submissions, which reflect on legal philosophy or legal theory, hermeneutics, the relation between psychoanalysis and language, the intersection between law and literature, as well as the relation between law and aesthetics.   We encourage researchers to submit proposals for Special Issues so as to promote their research projects. Submissions should be sent to the EIC.   We aim at publishing Online First to decrease publication delays, and give the possibility to select Open Choice.   Our goal is to identify, promote and publish interdisciplinary and innovative research papers in legal semiotics.
期刊最新文献
International Law in The Era of Blockchain: Law Semiotics. Ecosystem Vulnerability. New Semantics for International Law. Vulnerability. From the Paradigmatic Subject to a New Paradigm of the Human Condition? An Introduction. Digitisation and Sharing of Collections: Museum Practices and Copyright During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Queer Privacy Protection: Challenges and the Fight within Libraries.
×
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