 |
 |
To clarify: Emma used the term ‘medical professionals’ and associated this with ‘clinical’. It seemed to me there was a risk of conflating ‘clinical medical, and from personal experience’ with ‘medical model as in cultural theory’ – but looks like I also was not too clear on that. I think Emma is correct to say that in terms of initial eligibility the DSA is medical model, not because of the ‘medical professional’ input but (as you also point out Andy) because of the desire for the letter from a ‘suitably qualified professional’ ie the professional does not have to be ‘clinical’, a word that suggests healthcare practice rather than cognitive science or educational studies. Amanda On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:48:14 -0000, A Velarde <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Hi Amanda. Just to butt in in your very clear perspective. I slightly >disagree with you regarding this point. Amanda wrote: "On the DSA: yes, this >is predicated on medical model because the student is >asked for evidence from a ‘suitably qualified professional’. However, the >existing DSA Guidance does not define disability and I suggest it would be >worth taking a look in detail at what is accepted as evidence of eligibility >for >DSA (the majority of students seen for DSA assessment have SPLDs and the >evidence is not produced by medical professionals)" > >This may be interpreted as if you are saying that the model may not be >'medical' because non medical evidence is needed to 'diagnose' a disability. > >Could you elaborate ofn this point. It is my understanding that a >medicalised model do both individualise and pathologise a disability. it is >hence irrelevant i f those elements are done by a gp, a medical consultand, >a councelor, a nuclear physicist or a builder. The model would folow a >medicalised approach because it 'profesionalise' knowldege to categorise and >patologise impairements. > >best Andy >