 |
 |
Good morning all, I have a decided bout of deja vue about this message: I sent it out some weeks ago, and thought it had gone to the list, and since had died through lack of interest. What is going on? rgds John ----- Original Message ----- From: clb10 <[log in to unmask]> To: David Pfeiffer <[log in to unmask]> Cc: Disability Studies Research List <[log in to unmask]>; Webber, Caroline <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 1:52 AM Subject: Re: percentages of pwd in the US population > Good morning David, > > ... like the proverbial dog with a bone, you are still giving me > negatives. > > You may feel that asking the questions at all is discrimminating, and I > will > not argue the toss on that. However from a purely pragmatic positions - > engineers like me are like that at times - from a public policy > perspective > it can be useful, in the same way that by surveying traffic flow or > population densities better roads or services may result. For example: > > My state of Queensland is the worst state in Oz when it comes to > supporting > people with disabilities and their families (I am happy to argue why I > ALWAYS include families; later) It funds at about 56% of the national > average which is pretty sus too. The reason is that it has carefully > hidden > behind its ignorance. It only acknowledged those it fell over by > accident, > and then only reluctantly. At no time did it have a clue of the full > extend > of the problem (again, if the terminology offends you, tough, it is a > problem to us) It never had a data collection system in place, and hence > department advice to its minister and treasury have been total nonsense > driven by ignorance. Two years ago a new minister took charge and > introduced > a 'needs registration process', flawed may be, but a first step to > collecting useful data systematically. Government now has some realistic > data to drive public policy. Asking relevant questions in the census > would > remove much of the 'iceberg factor' and hence provide better > information. In > itself this information may be neutral, but the mere fact that the > questions > are asked, the answers considered, implies some emotional equity or > ownership, and may well be the key to reducing rather than enshrining > discrimmination. > > Your turn again, rgds John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Pfeiffer <[log in to unmask]> > To: John Homan <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: Disability Studies Research List > <[log in to unmask]>; > Webber, Caroline <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:53 AM > Subject: Re: percentages of pwd in the US population > > > > On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, John Homan wrote: > > [snip] > > > What are the questions you believe should be asked in the census? > > As you mention below, about five questions should do it, but if we are > > to insist that people with disabilities are the same as people without > > disabilities why ask the question? I argue about the percentage because I > > want people to know that we are not a small group, but rather have > > considerable political power (in a limited way). The disability community > > in the US is credited with being one of three groups who enabled former > > president George Bush to defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988 and it played a > > role in subsequent presidential elections, though not everyone knows it. > > > > [snip] > > > The World Health Organization's definition may be a good starting > > > point: "Disability is a loss or reduction of functional ability which > > > results from an impairment. An impairment is defined as an anatomical or > > > functional abnormality or loss which may or may not result in a > disability. > > > Disabilities can derive from impairments which can be physical, sensory, > > > intellectual or psychiatric." > > NO WAY! I guess my reputation as the ICIDH slayer has not reached > > Oz. You are suggesting a medical model which allows physicians to make > > non-medical decisions, which assigns pwd to a low status, which then sets > > us up for eugenics and mercy killing, and which has problems of logic and > > is replete with handicapist language. I know (all too well) that there is > > a new version of the ICIDH even with new initials, but it is the old, 1980 > > version which is being used and cited. > > [snip] > > > > David > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > David Pfeiffer, Ph.D. > > Resident Scholar > > Center on Disability Studies > > University of Hawai`i at Manoa > > [log in to unmask] > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Center on Disability Studies....maximizing individual > > potential by encouraging independence, self-determination, > > and full participation in the community. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%