Successful critiques of health policies for people with impaired cognition identify a need for alternatives that go beyond individualism. ‘Choice’ policy was examined as young people with severe intellectual disabilities moved from special schools to adult services. We draw on three cases from a longitudinal cohort study to examine the way decisions with and for these young people were made and accounted for. It was not a simple matter of parents and transition workers hearing about these young people’s choices and facilitating what they wanted. The data raise questions about discourses of choice in ID when referring to people with severe intellectual disabilities: Few ‘choices’ could be considered informed nor made by young people with capacity to make them and many decisions were informed by other ethics. Findings were interpreted through a Deleuzean ethical–relational lens. We identify implications for theory and practice to show how Deleuzean thinking can reinvigorate intellectual disability.
|Number of pages||33|
|Journal||Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology|
|Publication status||Published - 31 Dec 2017|