Dear Kate,John,, Jamie, David et al,
seems to me we are all getting sidetracked by some
definition of disability which has some really questionable
characteristics (the WHO definition) when I suspect that
the genome project -for all its dangerous implications -
seems to be throwing up information which may well identify
a lot more people in the world are different from any local
societal or cultural 'norms'. The polemic about the
language and which are the right questions are material
inasmuch as they have to be used for some purpose -and for
an engineer then that purpose must be something to do with
adapting the physical world of, for example, street
architecture. Hence the question of who decides on what
someone is called can be redundant if what we focus our
interests on are the adaptations required to get around
like most other people. I am sure there are ways of asking
the questions which address the point of getting the info
(eg for planners) and will elicit replies which do not lead
to people feeling a sense of 'stigma' yet allow them to
self identify those needs. Yes I appreciate people will
still be resistant to the idea they need support, changes,
adaptations etc but it shifts the argument away from
individuals as being the problem (the focus of the medical
model fix-it approach) and directs it to- what is it about
social and physical structures which interferes with
getting needs met?
Ultimately this leaves politicians with the issue of How do
we overcome these problems? AND that is a different ball
game entirely.
JIm
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 22:21:56 -0400 Kate Kaul
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> >On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, John Homan wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> What are the questions you believe should be asked in the census?
> > As you mention below, about five questions should do it, but if we are
> >to insist that people with disabilities are the same as people without
> >disabilities why ask the question? I argue about the percentage because I
> >want people to know that we are not a small group, but rather have
> >considerable political power (in a limited way). The disability community
> >in the US is credited with being one of three groups who enabled former
> >president George Bush to defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988 and it played a
> >role in subsequent presidential elections, though not everyone knows it.
>
> Hi, David. Has your opinion on the function and status of groups changed,
> then? Maybe you can elaborate this for me. I think this is a really
> important discussion. However we define it, a group or community of
> people with disabilities is never going to be stable; the numbers will
> shift depending on why people are being counted or why they are choosing
> to count themselves. I think identification is always strategic; census
> and survey questions are designed to pick out certain kinds of disability
> and experiences of disability. I think an interesting shift in this
> thread has been from self-identification [on a survey with questions which
> direct certain kinds of identification] and identification of disability
> from outside which means, at some level, by a doctor. For example, one
> question cited suggested that receiving a disability pension meant that
> you should self-identify on the census as disabled. You only get the
> disability pension because a doctor [or more commonly, several] has
> identified an impairment and a disability. We are all familiar with these
> circles.
> >
> >[snip]
> >> The World Health Organization's definition may be a good starting
> >> point: "Disability is a loss or reduction of functional ability which
> >> results from an impairment. An impairment is defined as an anatomical or
> >> functional abnormality or loss which may or may not result in a
> >disability.
> >> Disabilities can derive from impairments which can be physical, sensory,
> >> intellectual or psychiatric."
> > NO WAY! I guess my reputation as the ICIDH slayer has not reached
> >Oz. You are suggesting a medical model which allows physicians to make
> >non-medical decisions, which assigns pwd to a low status, which then sets
> >us up for eugenics and mercy killing, and which has problems of logic and
> >is replete with handicapist language. I know (all too well) that there is
> >a new version of the ICIDH even with new initials, but it is the old, 1980
> >version which is being used and cited.
> >[snip]
>
> I agree with David that there are big problems with the ICIDH, its
> language, and its use. But I think that coming up with a useful
> alternative will be quite an interesting challenge. We definitely need
> definitions sometimes but at the same time "we" need to recognize that, as
> with any other group, "ours" doesn't have stable boundaries and, I
> believe, wouldn't really be well-served by attempts at stable definitions.
>
> >
>
> Also, while we're on the subject, can anyone direct me to the new version
> of the ICIDH, online or in print?
>
> regards,
> Kate
----------------------
Jim Wood
University of Exeter
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|