Hi Michael
Yes waiting for this to be bought up..You may be aware of the 'parents with
an intellectual disability' research going on in this School. Accompanying
PhD research by David McConnel specifically looks at the attitudes of
social workers in regard to 'child protection' where children of people
with intellectual disabilities are parent/s. The discrimination starts
with the reporting of (neglect, abuse, or whatever else) by 'concerned'
citizens and finishes with the judge who also makes decisions based largely
on attitude regarding
custody , linking it to perceived ability. There are some horrific stories
of Judge's decisions.
I know a woman who has a disability (with a degree of intellectual
impairment) who works in a childcare centre. I really hope she is not
being given a hard time over this by the parents who use the service. it
would be interesting to find out whether the publicity does in fact, 'rub
off'.
At 08:55 AM 2/13/99 +1100, you wrote:
>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
>
>
With best regards
Laurence Bathurst
University of Sydney
School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
East Street (P.O. Box 170)
Lidcombe NSW 1825
Australia
Ph+ 61 2 9351 9509
Fax+ 61 2 9351 9166
E-mail [log in to unmask]
Note: This is the e-mail address for my home as well
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is not one shred of evidence that supports the notion that life is
serious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|