For those families who still believe in a god, and have not grasped the
mathematics of statistical probability, the question 'why me' will
always in the mind. For that matter the atheists among us and the
mathematical savants also ask the question. It is a very natural
emotional response. Malgre tous.
Rgds John
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Julie, with due respect for your research in Botswana, and all the cultural
> differences, poverty, and lack of assistive aids thereof, I have to take issue
> with this statement:
>
> On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Julie Livingston wrote:
> > No matter the level of social acceptance, mothers whom I nkow
> > and work with are aware of these very real problems for the disabled and
> > so I think a campaign to prevent childhood disabilities does not
> > necessarily send a contradictory message.
>
> But such a campaign, thoughtlessly designed, surely DOES send a message
> to families with disabilities. "Don't let this happen any longer" is the
> slogan, however it is worded; and the implications for the families already
> affected are dire. The 'prevention' rally might work the pulic into
> a frenzy of cheerleading for science and medicine, but meanwhile, it
> plunges affected families into gloom and despair, perpetuating the "Why
> me?" mentality, and securing the families' place in the Temple of Tragedy.
>
> Julie argues for a campaign that would explore:
> > what acceptance means and in which situations exclusion/stigma occurs,
> > and how to phrase responses to it.
>
> The problem, as I see it, evolves in a way something like this: I stub my
> toe and am unable to walk for a week. What I "ACCEPT" is the fact that my
> pain and incapacity is my own fault, and I become a living, hobbling example
> to others about what NOT to do. Even if there were no clumsiness involved--if
> my toe was frostbitten, or amputated, or gangrenous, or attacked by virus or
> parasites--blame somehow falls on me, the individual, for not taking proper
> care of myself. Such is the mindset in our society, that health care has
> become a personal responsibility. The "situation" of the stigma, no matter
> how I "phrase responses to it," involves my being little more than a bad
> example, a warning to others, a pariah--as long as perfect, healthy, beautiful
> toes are the only ones seen as acceptable.
>
> Sorry, but I am not so optimistic as to believe that:
>
> > even if no secondary awareness campaign is possible at the outset of a
> >prevention campaign, I think that people are able to think in a complex way
> >and to understand why prevention is important, without necessarily interpreting such a message
> > as a judgement or commentary on the disabled people.
> >
>
> Dona
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|