Dear John,
I think asking the questions in the scheme you have proposed blatantly ignores the
social aspects of disability. They explicitly recognize individual "limitations" as the
defining characteristics of disability. That in itself sets alarms off in my head. How
can we expect the general population to think more in terms of environmental
accessibility rather than in terms of an individual's physical/mental characteristics
when a government-sanctioned census only legitimates the latter?
Would you be kind enough to explain how requiring pwds to reply to questions that focus
only on individual characteristics, "may well be the key to reducing rather than
enshrining discrimination?"
I think if nations were going to invest the expenditure that adding/changing census
questions entails, then they should attempt to bring those questions in line with the
experienced reality of disability. Instead of questions about who provides support, I
would much rather see questions about the kinds of services that individuals with
physical/mental impairments want. And this kind of thing may be more appropriate for a
survey rather than a census...
John, I would encourage you, as an engineer, to think about checking up-stream a bit
before you attempt to fix any problems.
(check the list archive if this is puzzling... I have only been on-board a couple weeks,
but I tried to do my homework and I hope I came to the proper conclusion since it most
certainly speaks to my own experience!)
John and David, Thank you for the lively discussion and thoughtful comments.
My Best, Jamie
>>The ABS recognizes different pigeon holes: Profound - Severe - Moderate -Mild - Schooling or employment restriction only - p w d without
restrictions. They make some sense, partucularly if they also have a focus
on the level of support needs . I believe a further refinement along the:
physical, sensory, intellectual or psychiatric categories is also useful, as
well as age categories.
John Homan wrote:
>
> Good morning David,
>
> ... like the proverbial dog with a bone, you are still giving me negatives.
>
> You may feel that asking the questions at all is discrimminating, and I will
> not argue the toss on that. However from a purely pragmatic positions -
> engineers like me are like that at times - from a public policy perspective
> it can be useful, in the same way that by surveying traffic flow or
> population densities better roads or services may result. For example:
>
> My state of Queensland is the worst state in Oz when it comes to supporting
> people with disabilities and their families (I am happy to argue why I
> ALWAYS include families; later) It funds at about 56% of the national
> average which is pretty sus too. The reason is that it has carefully hidden
> behind its ignorance. It only acknowledged those it fell over by accident,
> and then only reluctantly. At no time did it have a clue of the full extend
> of the problem (again, if the terminology offends you, tough, it is a
> problem to us) It never had a data collection system in place, and hence
> department advice to its minister and treasury have been total nonsense
> driven by ignorance. Two years ago a new minister took charge and introduced
> a 'needs registration process', flawed may be, but a first step to
> collecting useful data systematically. Government now has some realistic
> data to drive public policy. Asking relevant questions in the census would
> remove much of the 'iceberg factor' and hence provide better information. In
> itself this information may be neutral, but the mere fact that the questions
> are asked, the answers considered, implies some emotional equity or
> ownership, and may well be the key to reducing rather than enshrining
> discrimmination.
>
> Your turn again, rgds John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Pfeiffer <[log in to unmask]>
> To: John Homan <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: Disability Studies Research List <[log in to unmask]>;
> Webber, Caroline <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:53 AM
> Subject: Re: percentages of pwd in the US population
>
> > 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.
> >
> > [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]
> >
> > David
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > David Pfeiffer, Ph.D.
> > Resident Scholar
> > Center on Disability Studies
> > University of Hawai`i at Manoa
> > [log in to unmask]
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Center on Disability Studies....maximizing individual
> > potential by encouraging independence, self-determination,
> > and full participation in the community.
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|