The Bulgarian prosecutor launched a homicide investigation in September into the deaths of 238 children with disabilities who had been living in state institutions in Bulgaria. The children died over the past decade from malnutrition and starvation, treatable infections, pneumonia, “accidents” and neglect. Of the 238 cases, 149 children died in the institutions where they lived rather than in a hospital, raising alarm about why, on the brink of death, a child was not transferred immediately to a hospital intensive care unit.
Abuse and neglect are not unique to Bulgaria. Successive governments across central and eastern Europe are responsible for a systemic failure to provide adequate support to families with disabled children, often resulting in abandonment and institutionalization. Without a stimulating family or family-like setting, such children cannot develop to their full potential. Institutions cause deterioration in a child, even where neglect and abuse are absent.
The rate of institutionalizing of children with disabilities has remained stable, but is set to be reversed. Last month, representatives from the WHO’s Europe members met in Bucharest, where they signed the “European Declaration on the Health of Children and Young People with Intellectual Disabilities and their Families.” The declaration commits governments to improving the healthcare of children with intellectual disabilities to enhance lifelong development, as well as inclusion and full participation in society, and sets out 10 priorities for action, which include empowering children, protecting them against harm and abuse and transferring care from institutions to the community.
This is the first intergovernmental agreement to incorporate the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), a legally binding human rights treaty. The declaration applies the CRPD in a specific geographic region (Europe), for a specific target group (children with intellectual disabilities) and for a cluster of specific rights (the rights to health and to live in the community with appropriate support). There are 53 states in the WHO-Europe region, which stretches from Iceland to Uzbekistan, and 48 have signed or ratified the CRPD.
Children with intellectual -disabilities often experience syndrome--specific risks, sensory or physical impairments and other health issues, including epilepsy, heart disease and respiratory disease. Frequently, these conditions are not diagnosed, or are diagnosed late as a result of healthcare professionals’ ignorance of what to look for, or their inability to communicate with non-verbal people.
Head banging or screaming can, for example, be misinterpreted as being part of the intellectual disability rather than an expression of discomfort or depression — a phenomenon known as “diagnostic overshadowing.” Unfortunately, annual health checks that screen for physical and mental-health changes and epilepsy are not routine in many countries.
There is no effective training for healthcare and social welfare professionals that covers the special health needs of people with intellectual disabilities and no monitoring of health systems. People with intellectual disabilities are under-researched, their physical and mental health problems unarticulated and unidentified — and thus their special needs left unaddressed.
Despite some efforts by governments in the 1990s, institutions remain the default official response to children with disabilities and their families across Central and Eastern Europe. In 2005, the last year for which we have statistics, UNICEF estimated that “at least 317,000 children with disabilities in the region live in residential institutions, often for life.” The majority of children in institutions have developmental delay or intellectual disabilities, which institutions themselves can cause or worsen.
Institutionalization is often based on good intentions and carried out in the name of therapy, care and protection, but children in institutions are denied education, despite evidence showing that every child can learn and develop. They are denied rehabilitation and recreational activities. Many spend their days lying in bed, where they develop major health problems including bedsores, muscle atrophy, spinal deformities and breathing disorders.
Living in the community with access to both specialized and mainstream services is not merely a policy goal; the CRPD clarifies that this is a matter of fundamental human rights. In tough economic times, there is a tendency to sacrifice human rights, but preventing the institutionalization of children or adults with disabilities is no longer open to negotiation.
Lack of resources is no excuse, either. There is money floating around the system that needs to be redirected to community alternatives. Political will is also cost-free and governments need to introduce management and financial incentives for modernizing services and shifting their focus from institutions to families and community-based care.
Children and adults with disabilities, together with their advocates, should be involved in the planning, implementation and monitoring of policies and services. Inclusion through support for families and community-based care will ensure that service delivery meets human needs and complies with the rule of law.
Ultimately, it is government’s responsibility to respect, protect and fulfill human rights. In signing the Bucharest Declaration, governments have committed to stopping new admissions to institutions by developing community-based services. Empirical evidence supports this transition and international human-rights obligations compel such a move.
States are obliged to report on implementation of the Bucharest Declaration in 2015. For children in institutions, five years is a long time to wait.
Oliver Lewis is executive director of the Mental Disability Advocacy Center, a Budapest-based international human-rights organization.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry