The language of vulnerability : a personal reflection by Donald Macaskill

In a recent video conference, I found myself gradually getting more and more uncomfortable when one of the participants continually referred to ‘vulnerable service users,’ ‘vulnerable old people’ and ‘vulnerable disabled people.’ I began to reflect on my discomfort and realised that in essence it has to do with the use of the term vulnerable. It is one which is increasingly being used by commentators in the media and in politics. In this brief blog I want to reflect on the way in which the word vulnerable can result in the ‘othering’ of a person or group and the damage which can arise from that, and secondly and not contradictorily why I believe we need to accentuate the positive in our understanding of vulnerability.

‘Vulnerable adult’ was a phrase that was much used in the context of adult protection and safeguarding and to a degree still is. However, when Scotland was developing its new Adult Support and Protection legislation – which came about in 2007- there was a lot of debate on the appropriateness or otherwise of the term ‘vulnerable’. Many self-advocacy groups from the disability and older people’s movements were rightly uncomfortable with the use of the term. The reason for the discomfort is that the term used as an adjective can have the effect of diminishing, limiting and categorising a group or individual. In adult protection terms, it can both lead to a situation where individuals are treated as a group -continually at risk – devoid of distinct identity and capacity, and at the same time can lead to situations where someone is not considered to be at risk of harm because they either do not see themselves, or other professionals do not define them, as ‘vulnerable.’ So it was that the Scottish legislation, not least after some robust judicial contribution, decided not to use the word ‘vulnerable, and in its accompanying Guidance and developments there has grown up an understanding that we are all of us vulnerable to harm from the malevolent actions of another. There is therefore nothing inherently ‘wrong’ about being vulnerable, rather it is an essential characteristic of our humanity. Being vulnerable is part and parcel of human relationship where we take of the masks of pretence and expose the nakedness of who we are to another. Harm can sometimes arise when someone uses our individual characteristics including our vulnerability to cause hurt to us, it is not inherent to vulnerability.

There is a related issue as to why the use of the term vulnerable is unhelpful and it is perhaps especially a development we have witnessed as the pandemic has advanced. There is a danger that the use of the word ‘vulnerable’ risks the ‘othering’ of a person or group. What do I mean by that? Othering treats a group as ‘them.’ To ‘other’ a group or person means to so categorise and distance them that they lose autonomy, individuality and control. They become the object of our concern or care, the centre of our action on their behalf – they lose their voice and agency – their ability to be autonomous and in control. We make the decisions and do so out of paternalistic regard. If we denote a group as being ‘vulnerable’ it seems to almost add justification to the way in which we diminish their autonomy and take actions ‘in their best interests.’ Thus, we have heard words such as ‘vulnerable old people’ throughout the pandemic – treating individuals as a collective with an increasingly diminished ability to see them as individuals and able to make decisions and exercise risk on their own terms.

I mentioned above that as well as a concern for the mis-use of the word vulnerable that I would also want us to embrace a positive dimension to vulnerability. Perhaps the person who has advanced this more than anyone else has been the researcher and speaker Brene Brown. She has in her writings and speeches cogently articulated the need to recognise vulnerability as intrinsic to our humanity.

Brene Brown argues that vulnerability is essential to enable us to live a life which is connected and authentic. She believes that it is those who live fully open to their vulnerability, who ‘spend their life showing up’, who are happiest in their own self and in relationship with others.

In our rush into situations of strength and protection, in our avoidance of risk and emotion, perhaps especially in pandemic times, we are in danger of on the one hand diminishing some people by labelling them as vulnerable and on the other hand totally falling to see that vulnerability is a real strength, and an  essential asset and characteristic of our humanity.

Throughout my working and personal life, I have continually discovered that it is those who are vulnerable, who are wounded, (the word ‘vulnerable’ indeed comes from the Latin word ‘to wound’),  those who live fully raw and honest lives, it is they that evidence to us a strength, reality and maturity which is beyond price and value.

To live a life open to the dynamic of change and circumstance, to be courageous to the point that we can allow others into the space which is our inner self, to be able to stand against easy stereotype and hatred, to speak against the noise of expectation, strikes me as a wound of vulnerability we should all be seeking.

The English poet David Whyte has written a beautiful narrative poem which captures the intrinsic value and necessity of vulnerability:

‘Vulnerability is not a weakness, a passing indisposition, or something we can arrange to do without, vulnerability is not a choice, vulnerability is the underlying, ever present and abiding undercurrent of our natural state. To run from vulnerability is to run from the essence of our nature, the attempt to be invulnerable is the vain attempt to become something we are not and most especially, to close off our understanding of the grief of others. More seriously, in refusing our vulnerability we refuse the help needed at every turn of our existence and immobilize the essential, tidal and conversational foundations of our identity.

To have a temporary, isolated sense of power over all events and circumstances, is a lovely illusionary privilege and perhaps the prime and most beautifully constructed conceit of being human and especially of being youthfully human, but it is a privilege that must be surrendered with that same youth, with ill health, with accident, with the loss of loved ones who do not share our untouchable powers; powers eventually and most emphatically given up, as we approach our last breath.

The only choice we have as we mature is how we inhabit our vulnerability, how we become larger and more courageous and more compassionate through our intimacy with disappearance, our choice is to inhabit vulnerability as generous citizens of loss, robustly and fully, or conversely, as misers and complainers, reluctant and fearful, always at the gates of existence, but never bravely and completely attempting to enter, never wanting to risk ourselves, never walking fully through the door.’

Donald Macaskill is Chief Executive Officer for Scottish Care

This blog was originally published on the Scottish Care website and can be found here

“E bikes: the power for change” by Rhian Davies

I began my role as Active Travel Officer for NHS Dumfries and Galloway in 2017. A lot has changed since then, but the project aim is still enabling Health and Social care staff across the NHS and Dumfries and Galloway Council, to travel more by foot and by bike.

Rhian Davies, Active Travel Officer, on an ebike.

I was recently invited to share some of the project work at a remembrance event for Michele McCoy. Michele was Interim Director of Public Health and was one of the people instrumental in bringing this project to D&G. I’d like to take the opportunity to share more widely the reflections, and in particular, one of the successes, which I shared as part of the evening for Michele.

There’s a lot of talk about electric bikes and maybe you’re wondering what all the hype is about.

Firstly, what is an ebike? The “e” stands for electric and in the UK we have what are technically called ‘electrically assisted pedal cycles’ (EAPCs). This refers to the fact that the rider has to be pedalling for the electric motor to kick in. You can get into the nitty gritty of the legislation at https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules

I’m often asked;

Does it feel different from a normal bike?

Yes and no. It’s certainly easier! Ebikes are heavier, but the boost more than makes up for that. It feels like always having the wind behind you.

How far can I go?

As with your legs, it depends on factors like hills, wind and how hard you pedal. It also depends on the model of ebike. Typically, 40 – 50 miles from a full battery on low boost.

How fast can I go?

The point of an ebike is not a higher top speed, it’s a higher average speed. The boost cuts out at 15.5mph anyway (UK law), but you can cycle faster.

What if the battery goes flat?

Just pedal anyway, like a normal bike. But do be aware it will be harder work to cycle on the uphills.

Isn’t it cheating?

It’s a lot more exercise than driving a car! And you can choose the level of boost, or no boost, as suits your time and energy level.


A member of staff having a go on an ebike.

In 2018 we trialled the use of a couple of electric bikes at Crichton Hall and Mountainhall for staff taking short business trips. The bikes were used on around 50% days.

We also carried out a survey of around 200 staff and found all took between 1 and 2 business journeys of less than 10 miles each week. Of the staff who said they make business trips during the working day, 30% said they would be very likely or somewhat likely to use electric bikes for business trips. This would work out at around 120 trips a week where short business trips could be made by ebike rather than car.

After the success of the trial and based on the survey work, NHS Dumfries and Galloway bought 12 electric bikes using grant funding from Cycling Scotland. These bikes now form a fleet for use by staff.


ScotGem students enjoying their induction on using the ebikes.

One person using an electric bike twice a week can make a huge difference. At the last count in January 2021, over 6000 miles have been travelled by ebike, with 70% of journeys replacing car/van use, saving over 1 tonne of carbon. This has widespread positive impacts:

  • Physical activity is good for us! Colleagues replacing car journeys with ebiking are reducing sedentary behaviour which decreases risk of things like heart disease, stroke and diabetes.1
  • Across the NHS and social care system, patient, visitor and staff travel (including getting to and from work) accounts for 15.5 per cent of the total CO2 released from transport.2 
  • We know air pollution and injuries caused by people using fossil fuel vehicles disproportionately affects the most disadvantaged in society, so reducing car/van use also helps to reduce health inequalities.3
  • All these positive impacts help us to be a good neighbour to the communities we serve by improving health outcomes and reducing health inequalities.

But don’t just take my word for it – hear from Cher who had a loan of an ebike and Richard, who is a new cyclist, and what it means for them; https://youtu.be/ZI-80usQhdI

The recent publication of the IPCC report on Climate Change4 put into perspective the real and imminent threat humanity faces. It’s easy to feel overwhelmed by this. But the good news is you can take the first steps towards reducing your carbon footprint. Without reinventing the wheel.   

If you simply change some of your everyday journeys from car to walking and cycling – even for just one day per week, you can make a difference to the planet and to your own health.

The next decade needs to be a decade of action.  And the good news is you can take the first small steps now. 

If you’re interested in trialling an ebike on your commute, get in touch with your Active Travel Officer, Rhian Davies at rhian.davies@sustrans.org.uk or on 07788336211. You can also find loads of information on walking and cycling at https://activetraveldumfries.wordpress.com/

References

1 https://blogs.napier.ac.uk/tri/wp-content/uploads/sites/56/2020/03/Essential-Evidence-4-Scotland-No-25-Commuter-cycling-and-health-protection-1.pdf

2 https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/nhss-effect-climate-change-may-surprise-you-dr-catherine-calderwood-1395004

3 https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/14/health-matters-air-pollution-sources-impacts-and-actions/

4 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097362

“Protecting Breastfeeding: A Shared Responsibility” by Eithne Clarke

World Breastfeeding Week runs from the 1 -7 August 2021. The theme is “Protecting Breastfeeding: A Shared Responsibility”, but what does this mean and why does it matter?

Public health bodies are in agreement: Breastfeeding protects the health of babies and mothers and therefore breastfeeding should be encouraged. Yet breastfeeding rates in Scotland are amongst the lowest in the World, and in Dumfries and Galloway they are amongst the lowest in Scotland. Of course, every parent’s decision about how to feed their baby needs to be made freely and should always be fully respected. This is not about coercing mothers to breastfeed. However, it is about supporting the mothers who start off breastfeeding and stop long before they wanted to (Infant Feeding Survey 2010).  In the NHS we aim to promote breastfeeding, but messages urging mothers to breastfeed do nothing to enable them to do so. Too many women are forced to stop breastfeeding before they  want to, many in the first few days and weeks, through no fault of their own, potentially leaving with them with feelings of guilt and sadness, which may in turn increase their risk of postnatal depression. Too often, it seems, mothers are told “Breast is Best” before their baby is born, but once baby is here any problems they may have are “solved” with a bottle of formula milk. Where there is promotion of breastfeeding, but no real protection or support, mothers may end up feeling that they have “failed”. But this is not a failure of individual mothers it is a failure of the system and of our society as a whole.

Clearly this is an important public health issue. The Lancet (2021) published the most comprehensive review of all the evidence on breastfeeding to date. The article states:

 “Our systematic reviews emphasise how important breastfeeding is for all women and children, irrespective of where they live and of whether they are rich or poor. Appropriate breastfeeding practices prevent child morbidity due to diarrhoea, respiratory infections, and otitis media [ear infections]. Where infectious diseases are common causes of death, breastfeeding provides major protection, but even in high-income populations it lowers mortality from causes such as necrotising enterocolitis and sudden infant death syndrome. Available evidence shows that breastfeeding enhances human capital by increasing intelligence. It also helps nursing women by preventing breast cancer. Additionally, our review suggests likely effects on overweight and diabetes in breastfed children, and on ovarian cancer and diabetes in mothers.”

Breastfeeding needs to be nurtured and protected. Some might argue that there is “pressure” to breastfeed everywhere (including in this blog post). But if you look carefully, the subtle, and not so subtle, messages that surround us normalise bottle feeding and not human milk. There is copious advertising of breastmilk substitutes, and the normalisation of formula milk as a solution to all breastfeeding challenges. As a society, we often fail to understand infant behaviour. Well meaning friends, family, and even some health professionals, ask parents if the baby is “good” and does he/she “sleep through yet”, and suggest a bottle of formula to “fix” normal baby behaviours such as frequent feeding, night waking and wanting to be cuddled and carried. When mothers face breastfeeding challenges in the early days, they need encouragement from friends and family, and consistent advice and skilled support from knowledgeable health professionals and trained volunteers.

Many breastfeeding mothers feel uncomfortable to feed outside the home, despite the existence of law to protect the right of babies and mothers to breastfeed anywhere as and when they need to (The Breastfeeding etc. Act  2005).  Returning to work may present a challenge for some, and yet employers should be making reasonable adjustments to enable a mother to express milk or feed her baby.

So that’s the bad news. The good news is that what needs to be done to improve the situation for mothers and babies is well known. We just need to do it. A combination of peer support, third sector organisations, knowledgeable health professionals, the Unicef Baby Friendly Initiative and restriction of the advertising and marketing of formula milks has been proven to make a difference. In NHS Dumfries and Galloway we are fortunate that our Maternity and Health Visiting/Family Nurse services are Unicef Baby Friendly Initiative accredited, and our Neonatal Unit is working towards full accreditation. The Unicef Baby Friendly Initiative is an evidence based approach to improving the care of babies, mothers and families. It provides a structured framework of standards for each service. We need to work hard to continue to achieve and maintain these standards. Our Infant Feeding Policy requires all NHS Dumfries and Galloway premises and staff to adhere to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Code on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes.  We have three excellent Infant Feeding Team workers and a group of willing volunteers. We even have a Baby Friendly Guardian on our Board, and a Strategic Baby Friendly Initiative group made up of senior managers. What we still need is a shift in public attitudes to prevent breastfeeding mothers from feeling vulnerable when feeding in public, employment protection to support breastfeeding mothers returning to work, and ongoing investment from Government to provide NHS boards and third sector organisations with the staff and resources they need to offer optimal support to mothers. It costs relatively little to implement measures to protect breastfeeding, and, I would argue, the barriers are mainly about societal attitudes and how much value we place on the health and wellbeing of our infants and their mothers. As Keith Hansen of the World Bank said in 2015:

“In sheer, raw, bottom-line economic terms, breastfeeding may be the single best investment a country can make.”

Eithne Clarke

Infant Feeding Coordinator IBCLC

Women, Children and Sexual Health Directorate

NHS Dumfries and Galloway