Dear Group members,
I've been holding back for a few days, just to see if the time lag in news
reporting across our various time zones is responsible for our collective
non-response to the Louise Sillivan case, and subsequent aquital.
My interest in this does not stem from the circumstances of the death of
the baby, as this is something that is clearly of great distress to the
parents. Rather it is in the notion of the below-average IQ that has been
attributed to Louise Sullivan. And the purpose of this message is just to
start a discussion about how the acquital is being reported and perceived.
My source is WHO WEEKLY magazine, February 15 1999, and this does actually
reflect a lot of the media reportage that I have seen in Australia. Her IQ
is reported as being 81, "the average is 100", so clearly she is portrayed
as being somebody with a reasonably significant deficiency in intellectual
functioning. As I do not subscribe to IQs in my work as a service
provider, I am not well placed to pass comment on these levels. However, I
believe that here in NSW the Department of Community Services does not
regard over 80 IQ as being a person with "intellectual disability".
The description of Sullivan continues:
"Far from a callous killer, Sllivan was exposed as a woman with mental
capabilities below her 27 years. The court heard she was born with a
thyroid deficiency and hence suffered from "delayed development" and a
"psychopathic disorder".".... "In 1988 the shy girl joined Year 10 at
Benowna State High School, where she was put in remedial classes. "She
didn't really mix well," a former classmate, who asked not to be named,
told WHO WEEKLY. She "was different and didn't really slot in". The
classmate said Sullivan was viewed as "slow and simple" and became a target
for cruel teenage jibes."
Throughout the piece people are quoted as refering to Louise as a "girl",
despite her 27 years. There are clear references to her inability to cope
in a crisis, and I feel that this is linked strongly with her alleged
intellectual subnormality.
OK, so that's the material. To my mind it should be just as inflammatory
to the group as the reports about Ruff. The usual negative stereotypes
about people with below-average IQ pertain, and the subtext contains
assumptions about the suitability of "such people" to look after children.
The problem of labeling also is raised - do the various aspects of Louise's
life constitute the identification of "impairment" or "disability", whether
that be by the medical means of IQ, or through her experiences of
rejection, lack of opportunity, exclusion etc.? Is this an issue that the
disability group feels it should and can address, or is it someone else's
issue? Is it useful to draw comparisons between both the experiences of
people with (let's broaden the debate here) intellectual disabilities and
people with physical and sensory impairments - exclusion (lack of access),
assumptions about capability based on negative stereotypes? What about
governance issues for people who are labeled with intellectual disabilities
- the underlying mandate of most services is to keep them "safe", and
"manage" any risks taken?
I am interested to get responses from the group on this issue, to see if in
fact the analyses that have assisted in the intellectual empowerment of
people with physical and sensory disabilities can be applied successfully
also to people with intellectual disabiliites. And to get a sense of
people's opinions on the "risks" that are appropriate to people labeled
with intellectual disabilities. As I said I remain frustrated with the
conservatism that pervades the community living system currently, such that
it results in "over-servicing" of people, and significantly reduces their
opportunities for risk-taking and self-determination.
Michael Bleasdale
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|