We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has been adopted by national governments to advance the interests and wellbeing of people with psychosocial disabilities (PPSD). It is often assumed that the adoption of a ‘rights’ framework will advance the dignity and autonomy of PPSD. However, little is known about how families and communities understand ‘rights’. The present paper, based on research conducted in Santiago, Chile, takes a contextual approach to rights, asking: How do family carers of PPSD understand and use the idea of ‘rights’? How does the context of caregiving shape families’ understanding of rights?
Methods.
Four focus groups were conducted with a total of 25 family carers (predominantly mothers) of people diagnosed with schizophrenia and other severe neuropsychiatric conditions. Thematic analysis was conducted.
Results.
Carers’ experience of caregiving was marked by isolation, stigmatization, a lack of support and mistreatment by public services. Their family networks did not provide sustained help and support, and the public services they had used were characterized by scarce resources and inadequate support. Carers did not refer to rights of dignity or autonomy. Given an unsupportive context, and worries about who would care for their child after the carer's death, their primary interest in ‘rights’ was a right to guaranteed, long-term care. While carers endorsed the idea of universal, state-supported rights, appeals to compassion and the exchange of favours were spoken of as the most effective strategies for gaining a minimum level of services and support.
Conclusions.
Carers’ understandings, framed against a background of unmet needs and shaped by a history of unsatisfactory interactions with services and institutions, do not resonate with the principles of the CRPD. We suggest an expanded, relational struggle for rights that acknowledges the role of families and the tensions surrounding the distribution of rights within the family.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.