Search results

The Disability Rights Commission's Formal Investigation into the impact of professional regulation on disabled people's access to nursing, social work and teaching professions identified that unclear regulatory fitness requirements and their inconsistent implementation can have discriminatory effects. This article explores the relevance of the Investigation's findings for other health and social care professions, demonstrating that they similarly have a range of regulatory fitness requirements that may be interpreted and implemented in different ways, potentially discouraging disabled people from entering the professions or from disclosing their conditions. Regulations and guidance across health and social care professions need to be reviewed, bringing them up to date with current disability and anti‐discrimination legislation. A more proactive stance towards disability equality is required if the professions are to achieve the aim of a more diverse workforce.

The fear and experience of violence, harassment and abuse of those with learning disabilities are significant barriers to full social inclusion. The patchy evidence base and the confusing, and sometimes contradictory, array of policy and legislative instruments hamper efforts to tackle the issues. This article draws on the findings from an extensive review of literature looking into disabled people's experiences of targeted violence, harassment and abuse. The review found that people with learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions are at higher risk, and experience greater levels, of violence, harassment and abuse, not only than non‐disabled people but also than other disabled people. Situational vulnerabilities mean that the probability and experience of violence, harassment and abuse are due not simply to any inherent characteristics of those with learning disabilities. Under‐reporting and lack of appropriate response and support from criminal justice agencies compromise access to justice. People with learning disabilities are also found to have a propensity to report to third parties instead of to criminal justice agencies. However, the evidence points to lack of joined‐up working in various agencies, which hampers efforts at redress. There are particular concerns over a vacuum of responsibility as a result of confusion about the No Secrets guidance.

The purpose of this paper is to reach more clarity regarding the notion of compliance, in particular with regard to relation between this notion and the notion of integrity.

The paper is a conceptual investigation, following a broadly understood Wittgensteinian approach.

The main result is: there is no such thing as compliance in the full sense of that word without integrity. Compliance without integrity is a pathological case of compliance.

So far, issues of compliance and integrity have either been treated as being essentially separate or as one coming in addition to the other one. If the paper’s argument is correct, this should no longer be accepted. The whole discussion should, instead, take another route.