Advertisement

Implementation of Article 19 of the CRPD in Hungary and Its Impact on the Deinstitutionalisation Process So Far

  • Magdi Birtha
Chapter
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Magdi Birtha discusses the implementation of Article 19—Living independently and being included in the community in the context of the continuing segregation of many persons with disabilities in large institutions, and the beginnings of deinstitutionalisation processes in Hungary. The chapter reports on research about the first six deinstitutionalisation projects designed to close large institutions in Hungary—an initiative largely driven by the ratification of the United Nations Convenion on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD 2006). Birtha takes a socio-historical-cultural approach to explore why institutions are still present in Hungary and reflects on the challenges faced in closing six institutions. The chapter also discusses the role of the European Union (EU) and the importance of the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF) in providing incentives for implementing Article 19 in Hungary.

References

  1. Bagenstos, S. R. (2012). The past and future of deinstitutionalization litigation. Law & economics working papers.Google Scholar
  2. Bass, L. (Ed.). (2008). Amit tudunk és amit nem … Az értelmi fogyatékos emberek helyzetéről Magyarországon. Budapest: Kézenfogva Alapítvány.Google Scholar
  3. Birtha, M. (2013). Mennyire lehet konstruktív egy párbeszéd?—Az ENSZ CRPD Bizottságának felülvizsgálata a Fogyatékosjogi Egyezmény magyarországi végrehajtásáról. Fundamentum (Hung Hum Rights J) (in Hungarian).Google Scholar
  4. Booth, T., & Booth, W. (2003). In the frame: Photovoice ad mothers with learning difficulties. Disability & Society, 18(4), 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bugarszki, Z., Eszik, O., & Kondor, Z. (2013). Az intézményi férőhely kiváltás alakulása Magyarországon 2012–2013. ELTE-TÁTK.Google Scholar
  6. Bulic, I., Evans, J., Parker, C., Quinn, G., & Stein, M. (2009). Focus on article 19 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. ECCL.Google Scholar
  7. Common European Guidelines on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care. (2012). European expert group on the transition from institutional to community-BASED care. Online publication. Retrieved from https://deinstitutionalisationdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/guidelines-final-english.pdf.
  8. Concluding observations on the initial periodic report of Hungary, adopted by the Committee at its eighth session (2012, September 17–28). CRPD/C/HUN/CO/1.Google Scholar
  9. Concluding observations on the initial report of the European Union. (2015). CRPD/C/EU/CO/1.Google Scholar
  10. Degener, T. (2014). A human rights model of disability. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283713863_A_human_rights_model_of_disability.
  11. Degener, T. (2016). Disability in a human rights context. Laws, 2016(5), 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Degener, T., & Koster-Dreese, Y. (1995). Human rights and disabled persons: Essays and relevant human rights instruments. Dordrecht and Boston: M. Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  13. European Network on Independent Living. (2015). Report on personal assistance services in Europe.Google Scholar
  14. Fundamental Rights Agency. (2012). Choice and control: The right to independent living Experiences of persons with intellectual disabilities and persons with mental health problems in nine EU Member States.Google Scholar
  15. General comment No. 5. (2017). On living independently and being included in the community, CRPD/C/GC/5.Google Scholar
  16. Gurbai, S., et al. (2013). Legal capacity in Europe. A call to action to governments and to the EU. Budapest: Mental Disability Advocacy Center.Google Scholar
  17. Health Service Executive. (2011). Time to move on from congregated settings: A strategy for community inclusion. Report of the Working Group on Congregated Settings.Google Scholar
  18. Kálmán, Z., & Könczei, G. (2002). A Taigetosztól az esélyegyenlőségig. Osiris kiadó.Google Scholar
  19. Kanter, A. S. (2014). The development of disability rights under international law: From charity to human rights. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kozma, Á. (2008). Az intézetben élő értelmi fogyatékos emberek helyzete. In L. Bass (Ed.), Amit tudunk és amit nem … Az értelmi fogyatékos emberek helyzetéről Magyarországon (pp. 157–177). Budapest: Kézenfogva Alapítvány.Google Scholar
  21. Kozma, A., Petri, G., Balogh, A., & Birtha, M. (2016). The role of EU funding in deinstitutionalisation (DI) in Hungary and the experiences of the DI programme so far. TASZGoogle Scholar
  22. KSH. (2008). Szociális statisztikai évkönyv, 2007. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.Google Scholar
  23. KSH. (2014). 2011. évi Népszámlálás. 11. Fogyatékossággal élők. Budapest: KSH. Retrieved from http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/nepsz2011/nepsz_11_2011.pdf.
  24. Lewis, O. (2011). Advancing legal capacity jurisprudence. European Human Rights Law Review, 6, 700–706.Google Scholar
  25. Parker, C., & Clements, L. (2012). The European Union and the right to community living. New York: Open Society Foundations.Google Scholar
  26. Quinn, G. (2009). Resisting the “temptation of elegance”: Can the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities socialise states to right behaviour? In O. M. Arnadóttir & G. Quinn (Eds.), The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (pp. 215–256). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quinn, G., & Doyle, S. (2012). ‘Getting a life’—Living independently and being included in the community. UN OHCHR.Google Scholar
  28. Quinn, G., & Stein, M. (2009). Challenges in realizing the right to live in the community, in focus on article 19 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In European coalition for community living.Google Scholar
  29. Report of the Ad-Hoc Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community Care. (2009).Google Scholar
  30. Ruzsics, I. (2013). A kitagolás folyamatai Európában és Magyarországon. Mentor(h)áló 2.0 Program, TÁMOP-4.1.2.B.2-13/1-2013-0008 projekt.Google Scholar
  31. Szmukler, G., & Appelbaum, P. (2008). Treatment pressures, leverage, coercion, and compulsion in mental health care. Journal of Mental Health, 17(3), 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. TASZ. (2014). Joghalál a törvényben: A fogyatékos személyek bármikor megfoszthatók önrendelkezési joguktól.Google Scholar
  33. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Its Optional Protocol.Google Scholar
  34. Verdes, T. (2009). A ház az intézet tulajdona. Esély, 2009(4), 92–112.Google Scholar
  35. Walmsley, J., & Johnson, K. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present, and futures. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magdi Birtha
    • 1
  1. 1.CDLP, National University of Ireland (NUI)GalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations