Literature Review on Provision of Appropriate and Accessible ...

PAGE 99
of capacity to consent to sexual relations, and the need for an adequate
level of protection of vulnerable women with intellectual disability.
Gunn (1996) observed that the definition of capacity is crucial in
establishing a balance between a proper empowerment to exercise
sexual rights and effective protection from abuse. Murphy and Clare
(2003) note that the higher the requirement for knowledge and
understanding of sexual activity, the better the protection from abuse,
but the more that people with learning disabilities may be prevented from
exercising their sexual rights. Setting the ‘sexual knowledge’ criterion
too high would disadvantage people with more severe disabilities in
exercising their sexual rights. Meanwhile, setting it too low would result
in inadequate protection for women with intellectual disabilities.
Support to People with an Intellectual Disability who are
Accessible
and Appropriate of Provision on <strong>Review</strong> <strong>Literature</strong>
Experiencing Crisis Pregnancy
Murphy and O’Callaghan (2004) have explored whether a minimum
criterion could be set for capacity to consent to sexual relationships,
i.e. when does a person ‘know enough’ to be safe, so that they can be
protected from abuse whilst at the same time maintaining a right to
freedom of sexual expression. One alternative which they proposed
would be to set the criterion in terms of a social minimum of knowledge
required to engage in sexual relationships. The authors used the analogy
of consent to medical treatment and argued that capacity to consent to
sexual relationships should similarly require people to understand what
sexual relationships are, the risks, benefits and alternatives of such
relationships and the fact that they have free choice about engaging in
them.
Kaeser (1992) has argued that knowing all this in any detail would be far
too restrictive, and that people should merely need to be able to consent
to the sexual activity, while their staff and carers could know about and
protect them from harmful consequences. Murphy & O’Callaghan (2004)
contend that there is a careful balance to be achieved between requiring
people to know enough without requiring them to know everything. A
less restrictive test was that put forward by the Foundation for Learning
Disabilities in the UK, which would require that people would know:
1. That sex is different from personal care;
2. That penetrative vaginal sex can lead to pregnancy; and
3. That penetrative anal sex is associated with a risk of HIV/AIDS
(Home Office, 2000: 71)