Pre-publication version of article accepted for publication in Disability & Society Sherwood-Johnson, F. (2012) Constructions of vulnerability in comparative

This paper places Scottish Adult Support and Protection (ASP) policy in the context of debates about the nature of ‘vulnerability ’ and its usefulness as a defining concept in law and social policy. It examines the construction of ‘adults at risk ’ in ASP policy, using a comparison with the construction of children in Scottish child protection policy, on the one hand, and women in Scottish domestic abuse policy, on the other, to illuminate the nature of the vulnerability that ASP considers itself to be addressing. It then problematises this construction, drawing both on the social model of disability and on an ethic of care. It concludes that current ASP policy remains underpinned by unhelpful assumptions about disabled people, older people and people with mental or physical health problems. A more inclusive understanding of vulnerability would be more empowering to these people and others, in policies concerned with mistreatment and abuse. Points of interest This article looks at why Scottish adult support and protection (ASP) policy sees some disabled people, in some situations, as more vulnerable to harm and abuse than other people. The article compares what ASP policy assumes about this type of ‘vulnerability ’ with what Scottish domestic abuse policy assumes about affected women, and what Scottish child protection policy assumes about children. Ideas about vulnerability in ASP policy are more similar to ideas about children in child protection policy than ideas about women in domestic abuse policy. However, there are differences between ASP and child protection as well. ASP policy could say more about oppression. The three policies, and their separation from each other, are based on the idea that some people are ‘vulnerable ’ and some people are not. It might be more helpful to challenge that idea