Dear Shelly
Can you tell me if I've got this right..that you believe that
aneurism/stroke/aprehension of further aneurism and/or stroke do not
'qualify' as impairments? Thus you believe those facing these issues are
excluded from the social model of disability?
I am intrigued as I live with the constant likelyhood of a massive life
threatening haemmorhage. I count the aprehension of another such bleed( of
which I have survied two, and 40% of all people like me die on the first
occaison), as a real imparment if not an externally observable one.
I also have a cognitive impairment 'dyslexia' which may be innate or may be
aquired due to the chronic organ damaging nature of my disease..no one
knows to what extent my brain is damaged, but encephaopathy, chronic and
accute are both well known features of the condition I have. Again the fact
is my cognitive imparment is invisible to others, but I consider it still
to be a real impaiment.
I don't feel excluded from the social model so I am a bit puzzled as to why
you feel this model antagonistic to people with brain injury and cognitive
impaiment.
Best wishes
Amaryllis
It is, I would suggest, important to bear in mind a point Barry made in
his initial post on this subject. He referred to a conception of
cognitive impairment which included the modes of perception,
apprehension, etc. of people who have had brain injuries. (I would add
people who have had aneurysms, I think he mentioned people who've had
strokes). As I suggested above, I maintain that the term 'impairment'
needs to be deconstructed and its "privileged" status in the social
model thrown into disrepute. HOWEVER, I think that if in the interim we
are going to use the term, it is important not to reduce the varied
experiences of those who would be assigned to this category (i.e.,
people with cognitive impairments) to the rather more particular
experiences of one sector of this population, e.g., people with learning
difficulties.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|