Fellas
>In this sense impairment may neither be worse or better than
non-impairment, it is depedent on the context and value systems that
exist and we need to keep pushing those boundaries so that able-bodied
people understand that impairment does not equal worse than
non-impairment.
I think this is the claim that I am sceptical about. But I don't think
this makes me a determinist.
Tom
Impairment I think, MAY be no better or worse than non-impairment given
certain contingencies, eg. having dylexia may not have been any better or
worse than not having it before the development of an alphabet (not sure how
other symbols are perceived). However, I would be sceptical (too) when it
comes to severe pain with an organic origin and other forms of discomfort or
distress with organic origins (rather than that caused by environmental
factors). It would be difficult to say for example that an impairment that
causes pain or distress is any better (preferable) than not having that
impairment (with everything else being equal).
Best regards
Laurence Bathurst
School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Sydney
PO Box 170
Lidcombe NSW 1825
Australia
Ph: 61 2 9351 9509
Fax: 61 2 9351 9509
Email: [log in to unmask]
See School Website www.ot.cchs.usyd.edu.au
Home Ph: 61 2 9818 2050
Mobile Ph: 0407 069 441
________________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.
________________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.
|