|
fyi
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Reeve
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:25:23 +0800
From: "Erik Leipoldt" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Frank Hall-Bentick" <[log in to unmask]>
CC: "Christopher Newell"
<[log in to unmask]>,"[log in to unmask]"
<[log in to unmask]>
References: <[log in to unmask]>
<01b601c2c38b$cd8aeea0$86035f0a@erikleipoldt>
<[log in to unmask]>
Hi Frank,
Thanks for circulating it. It will at least appear in Online Opinion. Not
sure whether The Australian is interested. I sense that there is little
media interest in alternative views in the face of apparent wide-spread
support for the Forum by NSW groups. Pity.
My concerns are many-fold:
1. I object to disability being hijacked into the 'tragic medical model' we
struggled to get away from and is highly dangerous to people with
disabilities in an era of emphasis on health, wealth, youth, cost/benefit
analyses and individual interests;
2. I object to this image and people with disabilities being used, and
thereby degraded, to serve the economic interests of politicians and
scientist/businessmen;
3. I object to Reeve's personal maladjustment to his disability, his
'I-want-my-old-life-back', providing an all-out rationale for 'unfettered
research in a highly ethically controversial area. Particularly as he has
never seriously examined (publicly at least) the ethical and practical
issues involved with embryonic stem cell research, his self-interest appears
his only concern. Or if this is not all of it you'd almost think that he
has financially invested in the escr industry! A question to ask him perhaps
at the Forum ;
4. I personally object to embryonic stem cell research on the grounds that
in essence, and by way of inevitable slippery slopes, it destroys and
devalues human life. In any event adult stem cell research does have some
successes on its books whereas esr has not, reinforcing the view of some
that esr is not primarily interested in cures but the real money is in the
possibility to test all kinds of pharmaceutical drugs (and perhaps
substances for biological and chemical warfare too.We seem very close right
now to the nation that has the greatest interest in them). I do not object
to cures, as long as they are ethically sound and are conducted in
proportion to a recognition of the real underlying causes of suffering: ie,
how we treat and support each other.
I'll respond to your other paragraphs in the text of your message.If you
think that is useful for a wider discussion, feel free to circulate these
comments. In fact that appears ojne of the few ways left for any true
national disability debate.
Best wishes to you Frank,
Erik Leipoldt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Hall-Bentick" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Erik Leipoldt" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "Maurice Corcoran" <[log in to unmask]>; "Christopher
Newell" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: Reeve
> Thanks Eric,
>
> I have circulated it for
>
> I agree with you that focusing on only cure leaves the rest of us
struggling to
> redress society's barriers.
>
> Is your stance just against embryonic research in general or just for
spinal research?
>
> If either why?
>
> I know where Chris Newell is coming from on these issues but not sure
about yourself
> and Maurice.
>
> Further while we may feel Chris Reeves views on a cure are misguided and
misleading
> the average person in the street only remembers him as a bloke in a
wheelchair chasing
> his dream.
>
They get a picture of a man rejecting his disability as a tragedy and are
strengthened in their views of heroism of people with disability, falsely
equating disability with the terror and suffering of disability. This also
makes those with no possibility of 'cure' (say people with developmental
disability victims of their condition, to be pitied, and subject to a
'cure-or-death' ethic). There is much evidence, including in my own work
with people with quadriplegia in two countries, of most people with
disability, including spinal injury and regardless of level of impairment,
of leading fulfilling, contributing lives, provided good social relations
and support are present. His message is therefore highly problematic and
undermines what the disability movement has fought for for so long; full
acceptance and inclusion as we are. Disability is not going away. We need
to learn to live with it as a society, as so many truly courageous people
with disabilities and some allies do in their own way, every day.
> His visit does give us a forum to discuss the importance of living with
disability and
> exposes politicians, media and the public as to the unlimited capabilities
of a
> disabled person. Without his prominence disability issues don't often
interest the
> media.
>
It seems to me that it has given 'us' a forum to highlight Superman's unique
social and material status in fighting a condition he does not want at all
costs, including at the cost of a positive image of disability and
regardless of the destruction and devaluation of human life. Despite the
social issue coating on the Forum it is so obviously a platform for Carr and
Reeve's agendas. Have we heard anything substantial yet from the mouths of
these two about the social commitments that society must make to include
people with with disabilities. No. More than that have we heard of any
serious commitment that could improve the social lives of pwd's from these
two in that regard? No. I can understand perhaps something of the difficult
position some NSW disability groups have found themselves in, given that the
government can deal out carrots and sticks to them. I think they are wrong
if they believe that they can use that Forum to promote an inclusion
message. I personally also think that they are wrong to ignore arguments
that say that utilitarian support for escr (even if tacit by participation
in the Forum) may have serious wider consequences for how pwd's are seen,
valued and treated. This concern directly negates their aims of social
inclusion. Because of their active support of the Forum it has become even
more important for alternative disability voices from outside NSW to be
heard. An indicator of Reeve/Carr's true agenda is revealed by them being
the sole key note presenters without the possibility of a real debate with
those who think diferently. ESCR is not a NSW issue. It is at least a
national issue and this Forum and the conduct of NSW disability groups
towards it affects all of us. Did the relevant NSW groups think of this
wider responsibility for their solidarity towards all Australians with
disability when they gave their support?
> And lastly it seems to me that Premier Carr is more interested in the
immediate
> prestige and economics of this industry than the vague dream that it may
find a cure.
This is a point we made in our piece.
>
> Look forward to your reply.
>
> Frank
>
> Erik Leipoldt wrote:
>
> > gday Frank,
> >
> > You may be interested in this joint piece, submitted to The Australian,
and
> > elsewhere in response to Christopher Reeve:
> > http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5832815
> > %255E7583,00.html. Feel free to pass it on.
> >
> > You may also be interested in this:
> > http://www.raggededgemagazine.com
> >
> > I hope you're well.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik Leipoldt
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > Name: REEVE 1.03B.doc
> > REEVE 1.03B.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
> > Encoding: base64
>
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
