Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

EDITORIAL

EDITORIAL David Carson Faculty of Law, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO1 7 1BJ Services for people with learning disabilities have come a long way in the last two decades. (That is not to deny that much more could and should be done). Having a relatively coherent set of objectives, and an internally consistent philosophy such as normalisation, has been very important in getting this far. However thc philosophy, or value system, has been rela- tively weak on a number of key issues. These, I suggest, include: sexuality, risk-taking and criminality. These issues are, of course, being addressed but we have not made as much progress with them as with others. There are links between them. Each is perceived as controversial; each makes service providers anxious about their involvement with the client and the service. This anxiety is, substantially, the consequence of the relative absence of a practical commitment to, and belief in, agreed service goals and values on these issues. We may believe that people with learning disabilities should be entitled to express their sexuality in lawful and safe ways. But just consider the contrasting proportions of adults with, and without, learning disabilities who are married. Marriage may not http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities Wiley

EDITORIAL

Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/editorial-zIeahU0DMk

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
"Copyright © 1995 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company"
ISSN
1360-2322
eISSN
1468-3148
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-3148.1995.tb00146.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

David Carson Faculty of Law, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO1 7 1BJ Services for people with learning disabilities have come a long way in the last two decades. (That is not to deny that much more could and should be done). Having a relatively coherent set of objectives, and an internally consistent philosophy such as normalisation, has been very important in getting this far. However thc philosophy, or value system, has been rela- tively weak on a number of key issues. These, I suggest, include: sexuality, risk-taking and criminality. These issues are, of course, being addressed but we have not made as much progress with them as with others. There are links between them. Each is perceived as controversial; each makes service providers anxious about their involvement with the client and the service. This anxiety is, substantially, the consequence of the relative absence of a practical commitment to, and belief in, agreed service goals and values on these issues. We may believe that people with learning disabilities should be entitled to express their sexuality in lawful and safe ways. But just consider the contrasting proportions of adults with, and without, learning disabilities who are married. Marriage may not

Journal

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities – Wiley

Published: Jun 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.