Supported Decision-Making Service

Supported Decision-Making Service for Persons with Disabilities | Service Model

The Human Rights Center for People with Disabilitis

I. Ethical principles for supporter role

We attach a great deal of importance to further establishing the ethical principles for the role of

supporter. The following is a preliminary list of ethical principles formulated following the pilot:

1. The person is the expert on their life.

2. Every person has the right and ability to exercise their wishes and preferences given suitable

support.

3. Every person decides how to lead their life and bears responsibility for their decisions.

4. The supporter's role is not to provide care for the person or focus on their internal change

processes, but rather to assist them in the decision-making process and in overcoming

environmental barriers.

5. The supporter will not exert undue influence on the person.

6. The supporter owes a duty of confidentiality towards the person.

7. The supporter will not hold meetings about the person without the latter's knowledge, or, to

the extent possible, in their absence.

8. The support process and all information in the supporter's possession will be known and

accessible to the person.

9. The supporter will not assist the person to carry out unlawful actions.

10. The supporter may withhold support for the person's actions which are extremely contrary to

the supporter’s moral convictions.

11. The supporter will refrain from receiving any gift in any way or manner from the person or

their family members.

J. Risk and harm scenarios

One of themain issues repeatedly raisedwith respect to persons with disabilities under guardianship

is the issue of risk and harm. In the development of an alternative supported decision-making

service, questions arise regarding the supporter's level of liability in cases of concern over risk

or harm to the participant, and the supporter’s preferable course of action in such circumstances.

We are of the opinion that the great and disproportionate place that risk and harm occupy in the

discourse about persons with disabilities is more damaging than the risk situations themselves.

However, to prevent over involvement by the supporter, clear guidelines should be outlined with

respect to supporter conduct in risk situations. We propose as follows:

1. Imposing a reporting obligation according to the Penal Law

: The Penal Law imposes an

enhanced reporting obligation on a person responsible for a helpless person and on different

professionals such as care and education professionals. Despite the fact that the supporter is

not 'responsible' for the person and although the person receiving the support is not 'helpless',

we are of the opinion that in view of the extreme cases included in the reporting obligation,

extending the enhanced reporting obligation to supporters should be considered.