Social Structures – Page 3

September 7th, the Publication of the ‘European Care Strategy’: A Brief Appraisal of the European Commission’s Strategic Policy Document

Social Structures

Author: Matthew McKenna, PhD Researcher at Maynooth University’s Assisting Living and Learning Institute (ALL), Research Funded through the Science Foundation of Ireland (SFI) Centre for Research Training in Advanced Networks for Sustainable Societies (ADVANCE CRT)

Matthew McKenna

The highly anticipated publication of the European Commission’s (EC) ‘European Care Strategy’ (ECS/strategy) on the 7^th of September 2022 has been met with cautious optimism and circumspection. Certainly, there is a unanimous agreement that the arrival of this strategy is a welcome policy development. However, last week’s unveiling of the ECS also underlined how long overdue this development has been, and it represents an initial and elemental step in addressing the long-term systemic deficiencies in the European Union’s (EU) approach to the care of its citizens. If one is to view this radical collective change as a physical journey, then the ECS is arguably representative of a social and legal point of embarkation from a policy sense, and it is certainly not a final destination.

What we talk about when we talk about Open Cultural data?

Social Structures

Author: Marta Arisi, is part of the University of Trento team working for the reCreating Europe Project focusing on GLAM.

Marta Arisi

Open cultural data can be considered an umbrella term referring to anytime data from Cultural Heritage Institutions (“CHIs”) is made available without restrictions, e.g., thanks to open licensing (as the Creative Commons). It often refers to online resources that contain descriptions, metadata, images, etc. Thus, open cultural data is also relevant to the field of digitization of cultural heritage.

“Open” stands for the possibility to access the content freely, and- to re-use it. While there is not an accepted definition, useful examples may come from the Open Data Charter or the definition of openness proposed by the Open Knowledge Foundation. Some projects even address the context of CHIs, such as OpenGLAM.

A Moratorium on the Capacity Act: Delaying Disability Rights

Social Structures

Author: Hannah Casey, ALL Blog Editor and PhD Candidate in the Department of Psychology

Hannah Casey

In 2015, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act (the Act) was signed into Irish law. This Act aims to ensure that Ireland is legally compliant with Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD/the Convention). Article 12 states that a person with disabilities has the right to legal capacity on an equal basis with others, and that they are entitled to government assistance to exercise that capacity. Ireland ratified the UNCRPD in 2018, in the belief that the Capacity Act ensured full legal compliance with the Convention. However, as of now, the Capacity Act, while signed into law, has not been fully commenced by the Irish government. This is despite the promise that it would be fully commenced by the end of June 2022.

This delay has been attributed to several factors by the government. Primarily, there have been a number of amendments made to the Act, collectively known as the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill, 2022. These amendments have been introduced in an effort to clarify aspects of the Capacity Act, and address more controversial aspects of it, such as the regulation of the use of restraint, and public hearings. This delay, and indeed the continued delay in commencement over the past seven years, has been cited as necessary to ensure the proper resources are in place, and the legislation correctly laid out. An admirable sentiment, but one which is proving costly to those whom the law will primarily affect.

Will you be RADICAL?

A call to Action for Revision of the Disability Act 2005

Social Structures

Authors: Mac MacLachlan, Delia Ferri, Delma Byrne and Anastasia Campbell – Assisting Living and Learning (ALL) Institute, Maynooth University

Black Background. White font large letters ‘Have your Say’ underneath subheading ‘Be RADICAL’ underneath text reads ‘Revision of the Act on Disability in Ireland through Collaborative Action for new Legislation’, the R, A, D, I, C, A, and L are bolded and underlined. — Be RADICAL: *Revision of the Act on Disability in Ireland through Collaborative Action for new Legislation*

By asking you to be RADICAL we are asking you to join us in calling for the Revision of the Act on Disability in Ireland through Collaborative Action for new Legislation.

We want to harness both new thinking and dissatisfaction concerning the Disability Act (2005), by constructively focusing on ideas for why and how the Act should and could be improved, now!

Our aim is to encourage legislators, and particularly the Minister for Disability, Anne Rabbitte, to begin the long-overdue process of legislative reform in disability. This year revision of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, (EPSEN) Act (2004), was announced. Revision of EPSEN, without revision of its ‘sister Act’, the Disability Act (2005), with which it is closely intertwined, makes little sense. Furthermore, both of these acts predate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) which, since our ratification in 2018 (we were the last country in Europe to ratify it), means that we are now obliged to comply with and deliver on the Convention.

“Human rights crisis within a crisis” – Intersectional challenges for persons with disabilities in the war in Ukraine

Social Structures

Author: Rebecca Daniel – PHD Student, Assisting Living and Learning (ALL) Institute, Department of Psychology, Maynooth University

The situation of persons with disabilities during the current war in Ukraine has been repeatedly described as a “crisis within a crisis” during the past number of months. This blog post aims to reflect on the multiple forms of discrimination that persons with disabilities face in times of conflict.

Approximately 15% of the worldwide population has a disability. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimated that 13% of people in Ukraine, in need of humanitarian assistance in 2021, had a disability. In situations of war and conflict, these numbers can even increase, since many disabilities are caused or worsened by war (e.g. through war injuries, a lack of health care provisions, or post-traumatic stress disorders). Given this, it can be estimated that the numbers of persons with disabilities directly or indirectly affected by the war in Ukraine are even higher than those estimated above.

Platforms under control? An expert opinion on the copyright aspects of the Digital Services Act

Social Structures

Author: Péter Mezei, Associate Professor of Law, University of Szeged, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences; adjunct professor (dosentti), University of Turku, Faculty of Law

Péter Mezei

Most of the European Union (EU) legislation on platforms was introduced in a period that we currently call “web 1.0”. During the early years of the internet, websites offered “read only” experience, rather than interactivity and user engagement. The early legislative acts in the USA and the EU have contributed to the emergence of brand-new business models. The platformisation – based on the safe harbours granted for (certain) service providers – has generated a brand new (“read/write”) internet culture, something we refer to as “web 2.0”. For a while, social media’s contribution to modern society was hailed as the new democratisation of life, but those sentiments have since then gone, partially due to platforms’ excessive content moderation practices.

Web 2.0 – coupled with rogue websites’ contribution to illegal end-user activities – have sparked criticism on a global scale. It took many years in Europe to come up with the necessary solutions to mitigate the negative consequences of the platform age. One of the magic keywords for these reforms was the so-called “value gap”, that is, the claim that platforms’ benefits from end-users’ activities is disproportionately greater than the fees they pay to rights holders. Furthermore, as data has become the “oil of our age”, an urgent need has arisen to regulate the collection, management and utility of information.

Judicial Review of Assessment of Need

Social Structures

Author: Mac MacLachlan, Co-Director of the Assisting Living and Learning (ALL) Institute, Professor of Psychology & Social Inclusion, Maynooth University and Clinical Lead for Disability Services, Irish Health Service (HSE)

Mac MacLachlan

On the 11^th March 2022, Justice Siobhan Phelan’s Judicial Review , was released which sought to address the grievances in two particular cases, and to interpret the intensions of the Disability Act (2005) regarding the Assessment of Need (AoN) process. I can make no comment on the particular cases, but I would rather comment on the broader issues touched upon in the decision and on Justice Phelan’s interpretation of the AoN process, while well intentioned and carefully considered, seems to me very problematic. While she refers to a related 2019 report from the ALL Institute on a closely related topic, the judgement will not help us address the challenges, which are certainly not unique to the Irish context.

The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the AoN was introduced to have a standardised and shorter assessment time, allowing for services that assist children and parents to be provided more quickly. It allowed for assessment continuing as part of routine clinical practice alongside services such as therapy, recognising that assessment is not a one-off event, and that people’s needs change over time. The SOP also allowed for the situation where, should a preliminary assessment not be sufficient to identify the need for services, then a more detailed assessment would follow. This is a pragmatic approach, to maximise the impact of available resources, as the Health Service Executive (HSE) is compelled to do under section 7 of the Health Act (2004): resources should be used in the “most beneficial, effective and efficient manner”.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: