Hello,
I strongly agree with you Sharon. As a professor specializing in Disability
Studies and a disabled person, I find the entire concept of this type of
surgery repulsive and barbaric. Removing body parts for access to care is
bizarre. In many ways, it harks back to an earlier age of eugenic
experimentation. As a society, we have yet to develop a comfort level with
bodies that move think or sense differently. If this child were
non-disabled, these extreme measures would never be considered. The real
issue here is a failure to provide needed assistance and support to disabled
people and a little disabled girl has paid a horrendous price because of it.
Kindest regards,
Nancy
Nancy E. Hansen, PhD
Assistant Professor
Interdisciplinary Master's Program in Disability Studies
Room 128, Education Building
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2
(204) 474-6458
-----Original Message-----
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lamp, Sharon A.
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Parents blog to defend decision to stunt daughter's growth
BJ,
Ashley's parents describe adult bodies of disabled people as "grotesque."
As far as I know they have not expressed regret for this and neither the
parents or the medical ethicists involved have otherwise shown empathy or
respect for disabled people and the disability rights perspective.
If disabled people want our voices heard and recognized as relevant in the
public debate over the "Ashley treatment," it's urgent that we speak out
as much and as often as possible. A broad range of voices and approaches
resisting the ableism behind medical "ethics" is important to getting the
perspectives of disabled people at the table on this and other matters
that affect our lives. So for me, evidence of these voices speaking out in
resistance, in all their different forms and styles, is empowering.
Best, Sharon
#
On Mon, January 8, 2007 1:44 pm, BJ Kitchin wrote:
> I almost dare not comment, clearly I risk being besmirched by what may be
> perceived as having a less sympathetic view to the negative issues of
> embodiment and social construction of disability then that of Mr.
> Shakespeare. However, in describing disabled children I fail to see any
> empathy for anyone of any make or stature (other then himself) in Mr.
> Shakespeare's communication here:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/columnists/tom/201106_index.shtml.
>
> It seems driven by sarcasm, which is hard to get past.
>
> That we struggle to live with others because of our distaste for the
> burden
> of it is a universal condition (my view). Perhaps it is too difficult for
> a
> lot of us to see past our own bias's and quiet the clamoring of our own
> perspective long enough to appreciate the perspectives of another (Which
> seems fundamental to dismantling any ideas that do hurt us or those we
> care
> about or could care about). Isn't it our perspectives that move us to
> action? Unless I am able to see your perspective as meaningful to you I am
> in no position to understand your action/inaction. Seems simple enough
> yet
> nearly impossible to achieve universally.
>
> Using our wit to communicate sarcastically about such important issues
> feels
> disabling and part of the problem. By that I mean, if we are interested
> in
> the ability to see all people, regardless of ability, as worth caring
> about.
>
> Mr. Shakespeare seams to assume that those involved in Ashley's life are
> somehow flawed. Maybe they don't drool, limp, or grind their teeth
> involuntarily but they are nonetheless burdensome and need fixing because
> of
> their ideas. If I understand Mr. Shakespeare's implication correctly the
> ideas of the ethicists and parents involved in Ashley's case are
> deficient.
> Apparently these ideas are deficient enough to warrant his and
> accordingly
> our scorn. I wonder if Mr. Shakespeare's sentiment detracts from his
> argument because it is exclusive, meaning one needs to be on the RIGHT
> side
> of it to be worthy of respect. If we stand behind arguments such as these
> and try to further the cause of inclusion and rights of the disabled
> person
> it seems hypocritical. Searching for greater meaning becomes hypocrisy
> when
> the action harms others intentionally.
>
> BJ - Orono - USA
>
> ________________End of message______________________
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
> (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list
> administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
(www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list
administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|