Literature Review on Provision of Appropriate and Accessible ...
Literature Review on Provision of Appropriate and Accessible ...
Literature Review on Provision of Appropriate and Accessible ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
PAGE 91<br />
relati<strong>on</strong>ships <strong>of</strong> various kinds, including sexual, with the other<br />
pers<strong>on</strong>. In principle, whenever the state sets up rules for the<br />
behaviour <strong>of</strong> the individual within this sphere, it interferes with<br />
respect for private life <strong>and</strong> such interference must be justified in<br />
the light <strong>of</strong> Article 8 (2). [58]<br />
Support to People with an Intellectual Disability who are<br />
<strong>Accessible</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>Appropriate</strong> <strong>of</strong> Provisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Review</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Literature</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
Experiencing Crisis Pregnancy<br />
Keywood (2003b) observes that the right to sexual expressi<strong>on</strong> has l<strong>on</strong>g<br />
been recognised as a facet <strong>of</strong> the basic right set out in Article 8. [59]<br />
However, Evans <strong>and</strong> Rodgers (2000), writing in the UK c<strong>on</strong>text, argue<br />
that the civil law is not c<strong>on</strong>sistent in its approach as to the ability <strong>of</strong> an<br />
individual to engage in sexual intercourse or other sexual acts, <strong>and</strong><br />
whether rights to do so exist in law.<br />
Meanwhile, criminal law in Irel<strong>and</strong> imposes several <strong>of</strong>fences that limit<br />
the exercise <strong>of</strong> any perceived rights granted through civil law. When<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sidering pers<strong>on</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong>ship issues, capacity to enter a sexual<br />
relati<strong>on</strong>ship is a matter which is ruled by the criminal law, which requires<br />
that to enter into a sexual relati<strong>on</strong>ship each <strong>of</strong> the parties must be <strong>of</strong><br />
age <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sent to the act. The questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the capacity <strong>of</strong> people with<br />
intellectual disabilities to engage in lawful sexual relati<strong>on</strong>ships arises.<br />
As stated previously, Secti<strong>on</strong> 5 <strong>of</strong> the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act<br />
1993 criminalises sexual intercourse with a pers<strong>on</strong> who has a mental<br />
impairment as defined.<br />
3.3 Protecti<strong>on</strong> from exploitati<strong>on</strong> versus need for aut<strong>on</strong>omy<br />
The Law Reform Commissi<strong>on</strong> (LRC), in its report <strong>on</strong> vulnerable adults<br />
<strong>and</strong> the law (LRC, 2006), noted that the subject <strong>of</strong> the capacity <strong>of</strong> adults<br />
with limited decisi<strong>on</strong>-making ability to enter into relati<strong>on</strong>ships is a<br />
difficult <strong>on</strong>e, which has yet to be widely explored in Irish society. The<br />
Commissi<strong>on</strong> acknowledges that historically the law has approached<br />
this subject with ‘a form <strong>of</strong> benign paternalism based <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>cept <strong>of</strong><br />
what is c<strong>on</strong>sidered to be in their best interests’ (LRC, 2005). The difficulty<br />
in designing legislati<strong>on</strong> that would provide for a balance between the<br />
need to protect vulnerable individuals from exploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> the need to<br />
respect an individual’s aut<strong>on</strong>omy <strong>and</strong> capacity to engage in voluntary <strong>and</strong><br />
58 (1997) EHRR 244.<br />
59 Based <strong>on</strong> an English case, Dudge<strong>on</strong> v United Kingdom (1982).