As advocates we have a duty to represent the views, opinions, concerns etc of service users. We constantly remind people that we do not a have a duty of care (unlike them!), we are not responsible for the wellbeing of the service user (they are!) and that we will not interfere in service delivery practice. Our sealed lips policy is absolute so please don’t ask me for my opinion etc.

Like all good policies this is nearly right but not quite. As advocates we work in the real world where policies have to be varied in order that they are workable (remember the equal ops debate). In this case whilst the mantra of “no opinion” and “no interference” works a treat most of the time we are also put into situations where we have a conflict of policy. 

On the one hand we are advocates with all that that entails. On the other hand we are citizens with a “public” duty of care towards our fellow citizens. Thus as a citizen, we have a public duty to ensure that a child is not beaten to death in the street in front of you – even if this merely means ringing for help if you can’t intervene yourself. On the other hand we often witness things that aren’t in a service user’s best interest or where there is something we could do about nasty conditions (chips every day for tea). However we do not interfere unless our partner says to do so. There is no conflict. The conflict arises in that general area (grey as usual) between the obvious abuse (hitting a service user) and the supply of a sub standard service (of which there are probably examples in every relationship).

What measuring system can we use?

It all (again) comes down to a judgement.  In each case the advocate has to determine if, in their opinion, there is a significant risk to the service user.  Of course we are using words here that are generally banned in advocacy but there is no real alternative within the moral perspective that we as an organisation have defined previously as “grey” areas.

We believe that whist we are not the guardians of good practice (if we were then we would be shouting our mouths off in many cases) we do have a public duty to defend obvious (usually physical) abuse. The line is a movable one. Thus the rule that must apply is that; if an advocate feels they have to “shop” a provider, then it is imperative that they approach an Asist manager before doing so. This process has worked well in other areas (such as confidentiality) but does impose a time slip element. In most cases this is not a major concern. However there are cases where time is important or the abuse is gross. In such cases then the advocate has to take responsibility on their own behalf and take action. 

Asist is a supportive organisation and will support advocates in such circumstances.  If the advocate is incorrect in their interpretation it should be seen as a problem for both the advocate and the organisation.  For the advocate, in the sense that they made a wrong call and for the organisation in that they had perhaps not provided appropriate training.

 
In summary:
 * Where the advocate reasonably believes that the service user needs to be protected because of imminent danger, they should take appropriate actions to protect the service user.
 * If possible the advocate should consult with Asist managers to confirm that their actions are appropriate.
* If consultation is not possible (really imminent!) the advocate should do what is necessary. Asist will back your position.

  Training to be aware is the best solution for us all