1. It is now incumbent upon all professionals to understand the meaning and the implications, of  UN & European Conventions on Human Rights, strengthened by the UN Treaty on Disability and all associated Legislation and Government Guidelines

2. All professionals, dealing directly, or indirectly with the public, have an obligations to understand and practice in accordance with the 'Mental Capacity Act' and to provide 'evidence' to support any deviation from 'normal entitlement', which they propose.

3. Each new action, or proposed action, by any professional, must be considered on this informed basis, when considering Service User's entitlements & choices. You have to be offered / offer reasonable choices, appropriate to needs and expressed wishes.

4. 'Generalised' Professional assessment of; 'lack of capacity to understand and take decisions', is now clearly illegal (it was unlawful). You are entitled to an advocate if there is disagreement. Your 'understood' wishes prevail if this 'capacity' fails.

5. Family Carers of people who are unable to express their views, or who's views are being constantly ignored, or disregarded, are entitled to an Independent Advocate and / or legal support, in challenging decisions affecting Human Rights & Welfare.

6. In some instances, actions towards clients / patients may be 'criminal' if they do not take account of these clearly defined requirements of UN Conventions and the 'Mental Capacity Act', etc.. Professional opinion is no longer enough to determine outcomes.

7. Institutions can no longer be 'lazy' in their attitudes to provide services to people. The UN Charters, supported by National Laws and Government 'Practice Guidelines', are 'obligatory'; in the sense that these must be fully adhered to, in 'real terms', providing for 'all differences', not just recording difference in nominal & statistical terms.

8. Professionals wanting to do a 'good job' now have sound international and national laws to support these positive, professional decisions and are also protect against any institutional abuses of 'authority'. State your professional case & record evidence.

9. Institutions that inhibit any professional attempts to remain within the Conventions, Ethics and the Law, by any means, including the use of prescriptive policy and employment constraints, are acting unlawfully. This will likely be tested soon.

10. Where there are arguments of lack of resource, this is no longer acceptable as a justification for and inadequate service. These shortfalls are required to be 'notified' directly to the appropriate authority and efforts taken to promptly rectified them.

11. You (Service User & Professional) are required to be informed (and updated) in respect of these requirements, responsibilities and entitlements. It is the institutions' Managers & key Professional's (and your own) responsibility to ensure this happens.

12. Service User, Carers and Professional's are required to advise of any failures of duty as soon as they become aware, or as soon as practically possible. This should be in a form that records evidence and can be made available to those who can act upon it.

13. Failure to appropriately disclose 'shortfall' in care may cause professionals (and family carers) to be culpable for the risks & consequences that ensue (individually, or in general). If there are inadequate time & resources, this is a disclosable 'shortfall'.

14. The 'Ethical' requirements of The UN & EU Conventions (and established Ethics) take precedence over an Institution's statistical & administrative demands. Institutional Policy, statistics & finances cannot 'determine' individual care plans.

15. Any Institution's actions which subvert, diminish or disable, in any way (either by design or by neglect), the available opportunities to meet these professional obligations is a 'shortfall' in provision (or else neglectful, or unlawful).

ETHICAL GUIDELINE NOTES:

1. Every professional, who provides a service to anyone in the community, should avail themselves of the UN & EU Conventions on Human Rights and the Treaties on Disability & Mental Health. They are quite simple, but sometimes difficult to swallow.

2. These Conventions and Treaties are (and have for some years) binding on the actions of all professionals and institutions. The persistent failure to adhere to them has necessitated their refinement for special cases, such as; race, gender, disability, mental health and age

3. Where you feel that there are institutional, or specific professional failings, to adhere to these Laws and Conventions (and other Fundamental Human Rights), you are now powerfully protected, by employment law, from any 'retribution', or any unreasonable  for disclosing failures.

4. In all western countries there are organisations for disclosing our concerns, as Service Users, Family Carers, or as Professionals. It is, in fact, an obligation to report individual and general failures of duty, as soon practically possible, when we become aware of them.

5. In the UK these are the various Professional Bodies (Concerned with professional failings and abuses): GMC for medical profession, GSCC for the Social Work & Care Professions (Other Professions - constrained and directed by these same laws and conventions - have their own appropriate bodies - see Website detals)

6. The CSCI is concerned with ANY failures of duty of care, towards any individual, or group of client in the community, by individual practitioners, or any institutions, at any level, or within any department. These failure include those that can be identified through the Convention being discussed.

7. The Police have Child Protection & Vulnerable Adult Units. Details of these are obtainable from any police station. They are interested in investigating any concerns that you have, which put vulnerable people (of any age), at risk of harm (in any form), or by way of the neglect of duty of care.

8. This said, It is also these institutions (and other professionals) duty to ensure that in doing so, and in investigating your concerns, this does not interfere with that person's entitlement to choice and their right to live the way they choose, given the 'mental capacity' to do so (Which does not presuppose a service is not provided).

9. Individual Professionals, who find themselves carrying the burden of the duty of care, without adequate resources, or appropriate professional supervision, and who are not seen to have clearly disclose these institutional failing, may be held responsible for resulting risks and other consequences, to their clients and themselves.

10. The first duty of any professional, at any managerial level, is the 'Duty of Care' to clients (and the professionals supporting them). All other duties are secondary, unless they directly benefit and protect the service user and the professional in undertaking these professional duties.

11. Institutional responsibilities, given to individual Professionals, must be clear and unambiguous, in keeping with the UN Conventions, Codes of Ethics and The Law. In seeking to protect the Professional, this should not impact upon the entitlements and rights of the service user (least restrictive practice).

12. These responsibilities must be demonstrably supported by adequate resources for the health & safety and legal entitlements of Service User and Professionals; include methods for recording shortfalls & errors, ensuring these are made available to those, able to address them (in order to reduce 'risks').

13. All Issues affecting any aspect of the health & safety of both service user and professional, should be addresses immediately they are notified. This should be done in ways that are not punitive, or disabling to either side. The health & safety of any one is contingent upon the health & safety of the other.

14. If there are known resource shortfalls, affecting service users, they should be notified of these, provided appropriate channels to address these and provided appropriate professional support to do so.

15. In providing opportunities to for complaint, or make suggestions, there must be demonstrated mechanism as to how this will dealt with, a detailed outcome and an explanation of the decisions taken and the appeals process that may be required. (Ethically: Advocate is part of every professional role)

16. All information, processes and decision outcomes should be in a from that is geared to take account of a person's culture, abilities, insights and levels of knowledge. Providing information in a standard form is often what 'disables' people, who do not interpret, understand, or accept information in standardised ways.

17. Every effort should be made to ensure that the person, that any service, decision, or information relates to, is given every opportunity to understand 'in their terms' and make choices from available options  (including those that they identified). This assumes there are at least two options and genuine attempts to identify more.

18. If it is your opinion that your interpretation of Ethics takes priority over UN Conventions and the Law then you may be in error, unless you can show that your ethical interpretation is in the best interests of the service user, remains in keeping with the 'least restrictive practice' and the 'liberal' interpretation of the 'Mental Capacity Act.

19. The UN & EU Conventions on Human Rights, along with the associated Conventions ratified to reinforce the rights and entitlements of special groups, take precedence over all other legal guidelines.

20. Any legal 'override' of these right has to be the minimum necessary to meet the risks that this legal 'variation' is established to address. Such 'variations' must be regularly reviewed and reviewed whenever new evidence presents itself.

21. The Rights & Entitlements that these conventions protect and promote, are those same right you may expect for yourself, irrespective of any beliefs, incapacity, or variations in thinking.

22. Nuisance and Social Inconvenience are not grounds for the removal of human rights. The legal basis for the limiting of  rights is governed by the Conventions and required evidence and due process, with opportunity for appeal & review.

23. Even in the above legitimate circumstances, only certain, prescribed rights are impaired, for specific reasons and purpose, for predetermined, basis. All other rights remain intact and should be protected.

24. The protection of rights is not limited to  these guidelines, or the actual statutes as written. Human Rights are a natural, civilised Moral and Ethical framework of conduct and responsibilities that requires  indiscriminately fairness and equality.

25. The UN & EU Conventions require that we apply the spirit and well as the detail and the Word of Law, of  the Treaties. This is not an idealisation of entitlements it is now an obligation. Rights do not require 'proving'. Suspension of any of them does.

26. The fact that some Individuals, Groups, Agencies, or Nations (including those that Ratified the Conventions) do not adhere to the Conventions; even given they have not been successfully 'challenged' for this, does not alter the effective status of these entitlements. These cases and all other circumstances, are still bound by them.

27. There are no legitimate grounds for any agency, or professional, to operate in any way that is a contravention of these Conventions, whatever personal, moral, or social persuasion.

28. These Conventions are still in effect, even where a National Law proves to inadequately clarify the position, or appear to be contradictory to them. The Convention on Human Right underpins the Law in our countries.

29. It is not necessary to wait until a case is tested in the International, or European Courts, before they are deemed to be in legal effect. They are in effect from the day they are ratified by the required quorum of the presiding body (UN, or EC)

30. Even when an individual cases fails in its testing at on of these courts (contrary to what general points that may be made) this does not override the Human Rights of any other individual in these respects (As prescribed by the same Conventions).

31. With the supplementary Conventions (including the ones addressing Disability), it is not only necessary to ensure that The Conventions apply to all people, irrespective of, race, gender, sexual persuasion, age and disability.

32. It is also required that they continue to form the basis for any professional's use of 'special legal powers' (as was always the case), including police powers, mental health powers, child protection and the protection of Vulnerable Adults, etc..

33. There are clear Government Guidelines governing the 'suspension' of any 'limited' human rights entitlements. You should be aware of these. His information is widely available and it your obligation to be aware of these, as well as the Conventions.

34. The evidence used to 'support' special powers must be clearly sourced from the circumstances that are prior to your intervention. Any 'reaction' to your intervention can not be assumed to be part of the original requirement for the intervention.

35. Where the 'reaction' to an intervention also requires consideration of the use of 'special legal powers', this should be considered separately. This evidence should then reflect the fact that it was a 'reaction' to a constraint upon the person's 'liberty' and possibly their 'dignity' and any other possible intrusion into their human rights.

A United Nations treaty -- or "convention" -- on disability has been ratified by enough nations. It went into effect on 3 May 2008 and is now legally binding internationally.