mark sherry wrote:
> While I can see some attractive elements within the
> UPIAS definition of disability, I nevertheless have
> significant reservations about the definition of
> impairment. To accept this definition would imply that
> I accept that my brain - a huge part of myself - is
> “defective”. I certainly accept that it is different,
> but I am not sure that I would want to automatically
> concede that this difference should be negatively
> valued. I would much prefer a definition of impairment
> along the lines of the following: impairment simply
> refers to a form of human variation, which manifests
> itself in physical, sensory, cognitive or intellectual
> differences. If you must, you could add that these
> differences are often negatively valued.
I so much agree with your remarks about the way in which family members
of people who have had brain injuries are often treated. (I have
deleted that portion of your post because our list administrator has
requested us not to copy the entirety of long posts.) In many respects,
your remarks reflect the experiences of my parents, sisters, and other
family members.
I think the point you make above about human differences is excellent.
Perhaps I was not clear in my previous post regarding cognitive
impairment that I want to deconstruct the notion that some differences
are "impairments," for I do think this concept has implicit negative
valuation. That is to say, I think the concept of "impairment" is (to
use some jargon) always already a disabling one.
Nice to meet you,
Shelley Tremain
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|