The most vulnerable group in society

To Doloki - is the 'g' on your keyboard broken?

Lathyrus3

I think “vulnerable” has been confused with ”disadvantaged”.

Groups of people can be shown to be disadvantaged when they are not able to access what others can.

But “vulnerable” is those who are powerless to to protest, seek justice and direct their own lives.

So I agree that small children and babies are the most vulnerable. And also the severely disabled and the very elderly who have lost capacity.

I don’t consider “vulnerable “ any group that has demonstrated its ability and right to protest, demand or present their particular cause or need.

In being able to do so they are no more vulnerable than anyone else.

Nice point.

I’m not saying that someone like Stephen Hawkins wasn’t vulnerable but rather that n being able to very clearly express his needs and having the means to direct his own life he was for the greater part of his life not particularly mire vulnerable than the majority.

In that we all have areas our lives where we are n need of extra support.

If we can express our need and access the support we need we cease to be vulnerable, I think. But I need to ponder.

I'n not sure I agree. Someone like Stephen Hawking was undoubtedly vulnerable, as he was so profoundly disabled, but he was capable of advocating for himself until as near the end as we know about.

I agree with Casdon about mental capacity, and that we need a lot more support for hospices. The dying are very clearly vulnerable and need to be looked after as well as possible.

Lathyrus3

I think “vulnerable” has been confused with ”disadvantaged”.

Groups of people can be shown to be disadvantaged when they are not able to access what others can.

But “vulnerable” is those who are powerless to to protest, seek justice and direct their own lives.

So I agree that small children and babies are the most vulnerable. And also the severely disabled and the very elderly who have lost capacity.

I don’t consider “vulnerable “ any group that has demonstrated its ability and right to protest, demand or present their particular cause or need.

In being able to do so they are no more vulnerable than anyone else.

This

I’d agree regarding children.
I think the other very vulnerable group is anybody without mental capacity, regardless of age. Older people are more vulnerable due to physical frailty, but if they have mental capacity they are much less vulnerable to abuse than those without, for example those in the final stages of Alzheimer’s disease.

Sick and disabled children, particularly those who need hospice care along with their parents - and siblings.

Although the Government announced some extra support for hospices, they still struggle with funding as the majority of their money (over 90% in most cases) comes from charity donations.

What kind of society are we that the most vulnerable have to rely on charity? As one man in charge of two hospices said on the local news recently, if the hospices weren't providing this dedicated care and support, the NHS would have to take over.

So they need much more Government funding, not a drop on the ocean.

I think it is very easy to get hung up on the definition of the word vulnerable. Isn't it possible to be vulnerable in some ways but not in others? I don't think vulnerable works as a blanket term or an absolute.

Vulberable, as defined by a Poster upthread, from a dictionary definition, is for me a child, any child, no matter where in the world they are trying to survive.

Agree that 'vulnerable' is often misused for 'disadvantaged'.

But what does 'in society' or 'in our society' mean? Nothing, except 'in this country' when needed for clarity. It actually weakens the word 'vulnerable'.

Whitewavemark2

Ilovecheese

I consider small children to be the most vulnerable in society, with absolute conviction.
They have no voice and no power of any kind.

Yes definitely.

I was listening this morning to a podcast, which was explaining that something seems to have gone seriously wrong since covid, because the instance of SEND children has gone through the roof, and schools simply do not have the ability to cope with the numbers.

I wonder what has gone wrong?

Because millions were locked up at the most brain forming times of their lives 🤬
What did the so called experts think was going to happen.

I don't believe groups of people can be vulnerable but that there are some in every group who will be vulnerable.
I have known severely disabled people who have been loved and looked after very well but they would be classed as vulnerable.

And it was also against the law to help the destitute etc under certain circumstances - particularly throughout the Tudor period.

Life has never been easy for the vulnerable. I reckon one of the best times before the welfare state were before the monasteries were dissolved.

I agree that at certain points in their lives individuals can be more vulnerable irrespective of their age, financial statues and other factors.
A loved, well nourished, warm child is less vulnerable than a severely impoverished person in their 80’s on their own.
I don’t like to see any sort of league table of groups, that’s wrong imo.

Doodldog I too agree . I also agree with Growstuff's note on the personal circumstances of the vulnerable person.

It's a constant political football as to who should protect vulnerable persons. The medieval Church used to do it. With urbanisation the traditional church power of almsgiving and refuge and so forth declined as to intervention in care of the poor, the traveller, and the sick . Welfare socialism has taken the place of the medieval Church, and secular charities help too.

Ilovecheese

I consider small children to be the most vulnerable in society, with absolute conviction.
They have no voice and no power of any kind.

Yes definitely.

I was listening this morning to a podcast, which was explaining that something seems to have gone seriously wrong since covid, because the instance of SEND children has gone through the roof, and schools simply do not have the ability to cope with the numbers.

I wonder what has gone wrong?

Babies and young children are surely the most vulnerable, but aside from that, it is not a competition.
I think it is our energy company that invited us to go on the vulnerable persons list as DH had medical conditions which would be negatively affected if we were without power. After he died I reread the list and saw it included people of pension age, so I decided not to remove my name, not that I would struggle any more than anyone else of my age.
Context is everything. A woman of any age can be vulnerable alone in certain contexts. Or not, it depends.

Doodledog I agree 100% with your post of 13.32.

I was going to add that some people are "vulnerable to" various things in specific circumstances. For example, Some people have health conditions, which mean they are vulnerable to the cold.

If it's about deciding who deserves society's support, groups shouldn't be pitted against each other. For example, children can't earn money and look after themselves. In Western societies, there's a consensus that's some time in their late teens. Some disabled people will need support to live any kind of life until they die. Some of them will need the same support as a new born baby for the rest of their lives - the same as some old, very frail people. Ideally, all should have the support they need.

It’s somewhat of a buzzword at the moment, like the ‘just about managing’ and ‘working people’.

I don't think any group is most vulnerable.

This a definition from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services:

"A person less able to take care of themselves or protect themselves from exploitation, for example a person with mobility problems, a person with mental health difficulties, and children. Exact definitions of ‘vulnerable person’ vary across police forces and fire and rescue services."

Norah

GrannyGravy13

I am with Ilovecheese children are definitely the most vulnerable.

then severely disabled,

then pensioners in poverty,

then people who are in an abusive or coercive relationship,

I think vulnerable is a word bandied around so much nowadays that it’s becoming meaningless.

I agree.

Children are vulnerable. Apart from children, defining groups of people, with differing needs, as to if vulnerable is quite difficult.

Another who agrees here.

I have a friend who overuses the word, and pronounces it vunrelable. Drives me nuts! 🤦‍♀️

Vulnerable to me means "in danger of harm" so it can't possibly apply to everyone in a particular group, except perhaps children.

GrannyGravy13

I am with Ilovecheese children are definitely the most vulnerable.

then severely disabled,

then pensioners in poverty,

then people who are in an abusive or coercive relationship,

I think vulnerable is a word bandied around so much nowadays that it’s becoming meaningless.

I agree.

Children are vulnerable. Apart from children, defining groups of people, with differing needs, as to if vulnerable is quite difficult.

That's pretty much what I was getting at in the OP, I think.