This article provides an overview of the ways in which the mistreatment and neglect of older people have come to be understood as a social problem, one which is underpinned by a variety of substantive and theoretical assumptions. It connects the process of conceptualizing elder abuse and neglect to political-economic and social evolution. The authors draw on a review of the literature, government sources, interest group websites, and their own research to provide a critical commentary illustrating how these understandings have become manifest in legislation, policies, and programs pertaining to "elder abuse and neglect" in Canada. Suggestions are provided for changes in direction for policies, programs, and research.
There is considerable evidence to suggest that older people living in situations of mistreatment and neglect are reluctant to accept help. This is attributed to the high value that older generations place on their privacy and family integrity, and on their ability to cope and remain in charge of their lives. These values are particularly strong in rural communities. The paper explores the challenges these cultural norms pose for formal and informal helpers. The discussion is illustrated by the findings of a study of service delivery in rural Eastern Canada. The study revealed that the efforts of formal and informal helpers to accommodate older people's cultural norms, and respond to what they want, are frequently successful. However, this help is continually under threat from the centralisation and rationalisation of service delivery, as well as an increasing focus on the potential for litigation resulting from harm to clients or helpers. The implications of these findings for practice are discussed.
Our system of justice is generally referred to as an “adversary system,” although this term is used very loosely. At times, the term is used in a technical way to refer to a system with structured rules of evidence, party presentation of evidence, and a neutral decision-maker. At other times, the phrase seems to be given a broader meaning, referring to the way in which law is practised—that hard-headed competitiveness is the proper, and normal, approach. In fact, neither the rules of our justice system, whether criminal or civil, nor the way in which lawyers behave most of the time are best described as “adversarial.” The current situation, in which largely nonadversarial behavior and rules are described as an adversary system, gives rise to confusion and, more importantly, to unethical action. A possible solution is to cease calling our system an adversary one, and to acknowledge that other rules and behavior are more defining.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.