My colleague Kate Fulton just posed an interesting and, I think, shocking question on Facebook.
I know that she's just been at a conference on Supported Decision Making. I have not seen her since the conference but I'm guessing that the question is a quote from someone who was at the conference or it's been some of the prevailing discussion at the conference.
The question posed on FaceBook is, 'Should supported decision making be explored before substitute decision making?' (I'd bet my house on the fact that this isn't a dilemma for Kate...)
I think it's asking if we should give people the opportunity and support to make their own decisions before we step in and have someone make the decisions for them?
Kate answers the question with a profoundly right and resounding 'ABSOLUTELY!'
The fact that the question is even on the table is beyond disappointing...with all our rhetoric and assurances and declarations about Person Centred...Self Directed...Self managed...Individualised...Personalised...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
For all our talk we continue to trip up on the basics. Bringing the power and control (and money) closer to the people - a fundamental principle...
SHOULD we? Of course we should...
Will it be easy?...not always but sometimes more straightforward than others...
What will it take for this to happen?
That's a better question...and Kate's on to thinking about what it will take to influence the system...
Statements and questions like this show the cracks in the veneer of our understanding about Person Centred work. It's what John O'Brien would call our 'Integrity Gap'...the difference between what we say about our work and how we actually live it out.
It needs a bit of attention, I think.
