Hi All
There was a recent case in England where a school asked parents if
they had tatoos (amongst other questions) before deciding if their
child was 'fit' to attend the school. The children certainly didn't
choose for their parents to get a tattoo. In a social model sense
if there wasn't selection and educational exclusion - the tatoo
(cultural signifyer?) wouldn't have been pathologised? Have I got
that correct? OR is it that the parent's bodies are creating the
kids oppression? Or is it that the parents culturally ascribed
impairment - has secondary consequences for the child? Is it the
child or the parent who's disabled/ Or is it both/none?
Cheers
John
Dr John M Davis
Department of Public Health Sciences/
Research Unit in Health and Behavioural Change
The University of Edinburgh
Medical School
Teviot Place
Edinburgh
EH8 9AG
tele 0131 650 3244/6197
fax 0131 650 6909
email [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|