Search for:
On the nature of advocacy

The word “advocate” is used widely in the Autistic community. Within this community it generally refers to a person who publicly speaks out on matters of civil rights. However, there is a much deeper meaning to the word advocate that brings with it an understanding of where the boundaries lie between empowering a person and speaking over a person.

In the context of the law, an advocate exists to not only make a person aware of their legal rights but also to help them understand their rights in a way that empowers them to use their own voice in the fight for fair treatment. While somewhat simplified, this is essentially what statutory advocacy aims to do.

What we see most commonly is community or group advocacy. This is because within the Autistic community, people are generally broadly representing the Autistic demographic and not a particular individual. This differs from statutory advocacy because you are representing a large group rather than an individual. A balance has to be struck between diverse viewpoints and approaches.

Regardless of what form your advocacy takes, it’s important to have boundaries. First and foremost, within the Autistic community, advocates are most likely peers and not external agents. This means that we need to know our limits and protect our well-being. Advocacy is at its most effective when the advocate is in good form.

You need to address your own motivations and drives. Autistic people have a wonderful sense of justice and often a desire to protect others. The problem is that this can manifest as somewhat of a saviour complex. When we are more concerned with rescuing someone than empowering them to help themselves, we can end up stepping on their rights ourselves.

At its core, advocacy should aim to become redundant. An advocate should empower a person or group to be able to speak for themselves. The overall goal is to create a knowledge exchange that facilitates the person a group receiving advocacy to self-advocate.

This is something we forget to often. We are not speaking for people. We are sharing knowledge and building confidence. We are creating environments and spaces that lift a person up and prevent them being spoken over.

As advocates, it is not our job to tell someone else’s story. It’s our job to empower them to communicate their story in whatever way works for them.

Autistic drug-users and the lack of solid guidance in support services

In the UK the majority of mental health support and treatment is guided by an organisation called The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Their guidance sets out how each and every person treated in a clinical setting should be managed, and what treatment modalities are appropriate and inappropriate. Except there is a glaring gap in this guidance, this gap is with regards to the treatment of Neurodivergent drug-users. They have guidance on the dual-diagnosis intersection where drug-use and “severe mental illness” meet, but nothing regarding neurodivergence.

This presents a unique challenge to practitioners working in the field of substance-use; it certainly contributes to the misconception that drug-use is a non-issue for Autistic people. Of course, if it was an issue, why wouldn’t it be in the guidance?

Neurodivergent people exist at multiple intersections of race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, why is it so hard to understand that we often turn to drugs in order to self-medicate the trauma of our improper society? Weir et al (2021) showed definitively that while we are less likely to report using drugs, we are more likely to report self-medicating with what can be considered “recreational substances”. This pulls the plight of Neurodivergent people into the spotlight. Where self-medication exists, the potential for escalation to addiction exists.

Without concrete guidance in place, support for those existing at this intersection of experiences is likely to continue down a path of inadequacy. Some might ask what guidance should look like, while I have some specific ideas, I believe there is a wider need for understanding of Neurodivergent experiences in service providers. Guidance can’t just be drawn up in a “one-size-fits-all” manner, clinical commissioners and others involved in treatment policy need a nuanced understanding of our experiences.

This understanding can only come from co-production of material guidance. Autistic and otherwise Neurodivergent people need to be involved in the generation of guidance and policy. Having worked in service user involvement models, I have seen first hand the vital impact that the voice of those affected has on steering policy.

The truth is that many people writing guidance and policy have little to no experience of the real world effects of drug-use, let alone the real world impacts that drug-use has on Neurodivergent people in particular. Most of them are still rooted deeply in medicalised ideas of neurodivergence. Their are broad issues to consider.

Drug-use is intrinsically linked to socioeconomic status and further marginalisation. When you consider that only 22% of Autistic people are currently in any form of employment in the UK (Office for National statistics, 2020), not to mention the number of us existing in the court and judicial system; Neurodivergent young people represent a particularly large portion of youth offending populations (Day, 2022). We are 7 times more likely to be permanently excluded from mainstream education (Gill et al, 2017), representing 44% of all permanent exclusions (Vibert, 2021).

It seems as though Neurodivergent young people exist on a school to self-medication to prison pipeline, and that is assuming the drugs don’t end their lives before they have begun. The guidance is not only needed, it needs to consider all aspects of life that are contributing to it. We cannot claim that we are engaging in harm reduction while such things are happening. Let us not forget the horrifically traumatic experiences that Autistic people face (Gray-Hammond & Adkin, 2021). It’s a perfect storm for drug-use and addiction. We need guidance from official governing bodies.

It’s vital to mention that neurodivergence doesn’t end at 18. Neurodivergent young people turn into Neurodivergent adults. We need support and guidance across all age groups.

Until NICE and other clinical governing bodies work with Neurodivergent populations to produce guidance that is fit-for-purpose, we will continue to see the premature death and imprisonment of Neurodivergent people who are doing nothing but trying to survive in a system that sets them up to fail. We need guidance across all settings, but especially clinical ones.

Please sign this petition regarding the lack of NICE guidelines

References

Day, A. M. (2022). Disabling and Criminalising systems? Understanding the experiences and challenges facing incarcerated, neurodivergent children in the education and youth justice systems in England. Forensic Science International: Mind and Law3, 100102.

Gill, K., Quilter-Pinner, H., & Swift, D. (2017). Making the difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. Institute for Public Policy Research.

Gray-Hammond, D & Adkin T (2021) Creating Autistic Suffering: In the Beginning there was trauma. Emergent Divergence

Office for National Statistics (2020) Outcomes for disabled people in the UK: 2020

Vibert, S. (2021). Briefing: Five things you need to know about SEN in schools: February 2021.

Weir, E., Allison, C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2021). Understanding the substance use of autistic adolescents and adults: a mixed-methods approach. The Lancet Psychiatry8(8), 673-685.

The Mental Health Act (1983) explained

The mental health act of 1983 (updated 2007) is legislation in England and Wales that puts into law the individuals rights regarding mental health treatment. In particular, it talks about the individuals rights with regard to inpatient treatment. This is an issue of significance to the Autistic community.

Patients in an inpatient setting can be either formal (detained under the mental health act) or informal (they are inpatients volutarily). For the purposes of this article, we will look at the sections that can be used to detain an individual against their will, and what their rights are with regards to their use.

Section 136

This pertains to the removal of an individual from a public space, to a place of safety, for assessment. This is carried out by police. Under this section you can be held for assessment for up to 36 hours.

Section 135

This section allows police to enter a private place (not public) to detain you for assessment. To do this, they must have permission from magistrate. Again, you can be detained for up to 36 hours.

Section 2

Under this section, you can be detained for up to 28 days in a psychiatric facility for assessment and treatment. People held under this section can be treated against their will. It is unusual for a section 2 to be renewed.

Section 3

This section can be renewed.

Initially you can be detained for 6 months, it can then be renewed for a further 6 months. After this period subsequent renewals allow for 12 months of detainment. This section should only be used for yourself and others safety, and where treatment cannot be provided as an outpatient.

Section 5(2) “Doctors Holding Power”

This section allows a doctor or other approved clinician to detain you for up to 72 hours. This section requires a report to be made to the hospital manager. You are most likely to come across this as a voluntary patient.

Section 5(4) “Nurses Holding Power”

This regards detainment by a specially qualified nurse. You can be held for up to 6 hours, or until a doctor or clinician with the power to detain you arrives, whichever is earlier.

Section 117 aftercare

This section describes the legal duty to provide aftercare for those discharged under sections 3, 37, 45A, 47, and 48. this also applies if you are under a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

Community Treatment Orders

This is similar to being “on licence” from incarceration. A CTO allows you to be treated in the community under certain conditions. If you break the conditions of your CTO, you can be recalled to hospital.

This is not exhaustive, the mental health act contains a great many sections, but these are the ones you are most likely to encounter standardly.

Remember

If detained under section, you are legally entitled to an Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA) and a Second Opinion Approved Doctor (SOAD). You also have the right to go to tribunal and ask that your section be ended.

Verified by MonsterInsights