[log in to unmask] writes:
>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.
Hi, David. Has your opinion on the function and status of groups changed,
then? Maybe you can elaborate this for me. I think this is a really
important discussion. However we define it, a group or community of
people with disabilities is never going to be stable; the numbers will
shift depending on why people are being counted or why they are choosing
to count themselves. I think identification is always strategic; census
and survey questions are designed to pick out certain kinds of disability
and experiences of disability. I think an interesting shift in this
thread has been from self-identification [on a survey with questions which
direct certain kinds of identification] and identification of disability
from outside which means, at some level, by a doctor. For example, one
question cited suggested that receiving a disability pension meant that
you should self-identify on the census as disabled. You only get the
disability pension because a doctor [or more commonly, several] has
identified an impairment and a disability. We are all familiar with these
circles.
>
>[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]
I agree with David that there are big problems with the ICIDH, its
language, and its use. But I think that coming up with a useful
alternative will be quite an interesting challenge. We definitely need
definitions sometimes but at the same time "we" need to recognize that, as
with any other group, "ours" doesn't have stable boundaries and, I
believe, wouldn't really be well-served by attempts at stable definitions.
>
Also, while we're on the subject, can anyone direct me to the new version
of the ICIDH, online or in print?
regards,
Kate
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|