Tom,
Interesting how experiences shape understanding.
If the starting points are different how can we use the same road and reach
the same gate?
No wonder we can not see it from your lenses. The standpoints of parents
is usually different that of their children not just on disability but
particularly on that.
I for example started my understanding from the point of where you are at
now. My parent wanted me as non-disabled, having been taken (not by choice)
from Italy to Canada to be made non-disabled. I was told that I wanted that
too. Only in my late teens and the following 20 years did I realize through
deconstruction. I don't want this. no more pain , no more medication . No
more my parent's choice. My choice had to be mine.
I guess what I'm saying is that parents and children start from different
standpoints. This is true not only of disability but everything.
Young women today are rejecting feminism) to our dismay! At a meeting a
strong Quebec feminist of my generation, was saying why how can this be of
her own daughter? The woman, we all knows fought for women's liberation
ever since I can recall. To give the next generation choices and all she
wants is to be a housewife? She is rejecting "real choice" Her daughter
responded quite publicly that being a housewife, and doing nothing is a
choice.
My lesson has been that when you are on the margin, you can not be
consistent, because where you start from is not the same as where the
majority or mainstream is. Being consistent would entail adopting at least
some mainstreams view. just my 2 cents
Maria
----- Original Message -----
From: "T W Shakespeare" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 6:08 AM
Subject: How thinking develops
> My thinking on disability and genetics has certainly developed over the
> years.
>
> My first challenges to the social model of disability came in my PhD
> research, conducted 1990-1994. At that time, and in subsequent papers
> (eg response to Liz Crow's paper in Coalition, 1992), I was concerned
> that the social model neglected to discuss impairment. Most of my
> papers since then have developed that line of argument.
>
> The developments in my thinking on antenatal screening came when I
> talked with parents who had had termination for foetal abnormality, when
> I argued with a range of philosophers, and when I talked to clinicians
> and scientists. I was unable to sustain the position that antenatal
> screening was eugenic or fascist, because in my view the evidence and
> arguments did not support that position, and so I changed my view. This
> was not motivated by my employment situation or any other interests, but
> by the desire to have an honest, consistent and adequate position.
>
> Since 1999, I have worked for the University of Newcastle, developing
> the PEALS Research Institute (www.peals.ncl.ac.uk) which promotes
> research and debate on the social and ethical aspects of science. Most
> of our activities are committed to enabling the voices of diverse
> publics to be heard. We work closely with patient groups, disability
> groups, and conduct high quality research on a range of issues. We work
> closely with the medical and scientific communities in Newcastle and
> further afield.
>
> My PEALS work in the field of genetics has included the website
> www.antenatalscreening.info which promotes balanced information about
> disability and screening, as well as the Reproductive Choices,
> Disability Rights Seminar in 2000, which brought together disability
> activists, philosophers, social scientists and clinicians, and the
> Screening the Gene seminar in 2003, organised together with Disability
> North, which explored genetic discrimination. I have consistently
> supported disability rights, in my publications and public appearances.
>
> There are a range of views in the disability studies community and the
> disability rights community:
>
> Some people in favour of the social model, others against;
> Some people against genetic screening, others supporting individual
> choice
> Some people in favour of the right of assisted suicide, others against.
>
> My views are not unique, nor even rare. They are not incompatible with
> promoting disability equality. We can argue about those views, but the
> debate isn't served by personal abuse. I don't think it's necessary for
> me to explain the personal background behind Shelley's current vendetta.
> I am surprised that any philosopher should resort to ad hominem attacks,
> rather than intellectual arguments.
>
> Wearily
>
> Tom
>
> ________________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.
|