12.07.2015 Views

Seattle University Collaborative Projects - International Academy of ...

Seattle University Collaborative Projects - International Academy of ...

Seattle University Collaborative Projects - International Academy of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

washing down <strong>of</strong> sleeping places. The particular practices in certain London Boroughs willprovide the lens for this. Thus in the City <strong>of</strong> Westminster there have been recent attempts tointroduce bye-laws to prevent rough sleeping and soup runs in certain parts <strong>of</strong> the borough andthe campaign against this (see Inside Housing, March 25, 2011). In the City <strong>of</strong> London anoperation to “wet down” doorways and other places where the homeless sleep was met with a“Rights Guide for Rough Sleepers” (see The Guardian, Wednesday 9 December 2009). We willlook at health and safety concerns, the fear <strong>of</strong> contamination, the touching <strong>of</strong> bodies and thetechnologies associated with this, and consider bio-power and risk in the justification <strong>of</strong> thesepractices. We will look at what prompts exercises <strong>of</strong> power (for instance commercial needs,political pressures, sporting events, disease etc) and also consider resistance to these controlsfrom religious and charitable organisations, deployment <strong>of</strong> human rights, and other forms <strong>of</strong>protest.Smoking: Are the Legal Responses Justified?Kynan Rogers, Flinders <strong>University</strong> (kynan.rogers@flinders.edu.au)Smoking is deeply related to mental health, and smokers face restrictive regulation on theirbehaviour, including support for measures to deny smokers non-emergency treatment. Smokingis a public and private health problem. However, the legal response to smoking is, comparedwith drinking or being obese, disproportionate. In Australia, for example, smokers are over-taxedand increasing prohibitions on smoking are, rather than being scrutinized, criticized for notcoming into operation more quickly. Tobacco is regulated like no other product. The discourse <strong>of</strong>smoking is increasingly normative, yet our legal systems fail to recognize this and continues torely on inappropriate rationales. As a minority, smokers are different, but are they differentenough and in the right way? Upon what bases do we truly regulate smokers? Are these basesconsistent with modern and postmodern theories <strong>of</strong> justice? And is tobacco control anythingmore than an institutional expression <strong>of</strong> the dominant social order?Addressing Hoarding: A Principled Approach from Public Health?Michele Slatter, Adelaide <strong>University</strong> (michele.slatter@adelaide.edu.au)Until quite recently cases <strong>of</strong> problem hoarding were treated as isolated oddities. They mightinconvenience neighbours, worry local authorities and risk the safety <strong>of</strong> family but they wereaddressed (or ignored) case by case. However, the last two decades have seen major shifts inboth pr<strong>of</strong>essional and public awareness. The incidence <strong>of</strong> problem hoarding is much morefrequent than was earlier believed. Hoarders fit no stereotype. There is no ‘standard appropriateresponse’, no ‘one size fits all’ and no pr<strong>of</strong>essional monopoly in these cases; best practicerecognises the need for multidisciplinary engagement and support. Although the ‘causes’ <strong>of</strong>hoarding are diverse, the lead-up to DSM-5 saw an explosion <strong>of</strong> research seeking to establish26

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!