To all
This posting is a question that plays a part in a couple of discussions
going on at the moment. I have written to some privately asking this
question and giving a response. The question is -
Why does Impairment have to be defined a one fixed thing? I've heard it
talking about as the brute biological fact, or a cultural thing or a social
or as I would define a it as both a biological, social-cultural and as
something we experience. In short why can't it be mixture of all of the
above. To loook at in as just one thing is such a narrow defintion.
Also why is the term impairment treated with such venom - of course because
the words 'medical model' springs to people's minds. But impairment need
not be conceived as medical - I conceive impairment as something we and
experience is prior to the medical. You only go to the doctor when you have
pain - an eperiential phenomenon, you do not ask the doctor whether you have
a pain. And is disability any less negative? - neither terms are greatly
positive.
For your consideration
Michael
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|