Perhaps this is redundant, after the post below by Jim Davis, but it is a
tool I use when arguing or asking students to argue. I actually remember
it becoming an issue in the clinical genetics conference because I used it
there too. Instead of asking the question WHO CARES or WHY IS IT
IMPORTANT who CONTROLS DISABILITY STUDIES why not invert the question
by saying WHY IS IT NOT IMPORTANT or who is it that DOES NOT CARE?
Not to say that this "counting" would be any less complicated or that it
would assure a better result, just that the point is (in my reading of
Mairians postss) about POWER rather than specifically about being out
about disability. And the question is usually who does not want to give
up the power, authority, tenure, credibility etc- WHen I was working at
the University of ALberta in Employment Equity for faculty and staff and
all the jobs had to be assessed for pay equity several MALE faculty
members complained that they did not want women to be hired because they
were women. We asked then why was it OK that men were hired because they
were men? The issue of qualifications is not argued here, but rather
representation and discrimination or institutionalized inequality.
Returning to the Singer debate, and to the whole "binary" thing of
disabled/ not disabled, and at the risk of upsetting people, the question
might not so much be is it wrong to terminate the life of a child or end a
pregnancy when there is a known disability- the question might be is it
wrong to do so if there is no known disability. What I mean by this is,
what if two deaf adults lovingly created a child in the hopes that the
child would be deaf and if there were a test to prove it hearing or deaf
and the parents did not want the hearing child is there any ethical
dilemna in terminating due to the absence of disability? The reason I
raise the inverted question is to apply the standard that Singer applies
to all sitautiosn- The good of the people/parents. Perhaps it would do
society more benefit and the parents more good to have deaf offspring, so
would it then make senes to abort or leave to die all hearing products of
conception? The trouble also involves the tricky issue of acquired
disability. Having a birth of a non disabled child in no way ,
statistical or other wise, guarantees a non disabled adult. Many many
more disabilities are acquired through poverty, injury, accident, and
disease than are detectable pre natally. Oh and did I mention violence as
a cause of disability? So Singer has it mixed up- the good of the
people would be much better served if we addressed poverty, violence,
nutrition and accessibility rather than by eugenically selecting out
people who are deemed to be inconsequential to society. Its scary to me
that genetic markers are being used as social markers when there is very
little evidence to connect the two. Conversely we have ample evidence
that shows quality of life relates to lack ofsystemic barriers,
accessibility and inclusion- yet we don t seem to spend the money on those
areas. end of tirade, for now.
Tanis is moving in August please stay tuned for new address and phone
number. Visit http://members.xoom.com/doetanis1/newhome.html for some
links. Pls send attachments to [log in to unmask] not to this email thanks.
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Jim Davis wrote:
> The difficulty of answering Mairian's question, with perfectly accurate
> numbers -- about who controls disability studies == does not subtract
> one bit from the question's validity, or political importance.
>
> So far, the few responses, trying to swat down MC's question, seem to
> all be in the zone of what I'd characterise as "Methinks the lady doth
> protest too much." Obviously, the question touches a nerve, or
> arguments against the question, wouldn't be the only on-line response.
>
> /\/\/\
>
> Perhaps it's time for me to "come out" about my location in relation to
> this. I have a presently often-"invisible" but always painful mobility
> disability, that will be crossing over into the always-visible realm in
> a few years... and may also lose my sight from it (or from a 2nd
> condition)-- in a few years.
> I've had many experiences on BOTH sides of the perceived "binary" of
> disabled / AB, so I've both been able to hear what AB people think of
> disability when they assume I'm also AB, while at the same time having
> experienced discrimination due to disability, in other contexts which
> reveal it, dating back to many years prior to my principal condition's
> diagnosis.
>
> "Invisibility" can be an opportunity to hear bias stuff, which you
> otherwise might not hear. But it's also not necessarily a fixed
> condition, always "on" (or "off") in an individual's life... nor one
> totally under the person's control, if they're trying to be invisible.
> With some disabilities, sometimes the situation removes any element of
> disclosure choice, and "outs" the person. So what's "invisible" in the
> morning, may become "visible" in the afternoon.
>
> But that fluidity of reality, in no way subtracts from the importance of
> Mairian's question.
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|