On 08/07/2002 17:58, "Larry Arnold" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> But I disagree with the non ammended social model because of the definition
> of the word impairment and the implicit statement contained when one
> examines carefully what it means, that there is an absolutely "correct level
> of physiological or pyscological funtion" and that the "affect" upon it that
> an impairment has is negative, which is in no wise any different from the
> old model when it is deconstructed.
>
> It ignores completely conditions that are neither pyscological or physical
> in the traditional sence but neuro-developmental differences.
>
> Still if people insist upon remaining in ignorance so be it, I cannot change
> the world alone.
>
Hello Larry
The point about the Northern Officer Group letter is to raise the problems
with the existing definition of disability. If you don't agree with the
suggested alternative - put your own definition forward.
True, you cannot change the world alone, but if a number of people /
organisations point out the problems with the existing individual model
definition and offer some social approach alternatives, at least we will
have done something positive.
Regards
Alden
--
Alden Chadwick
Co-ordinator
Northern Officer Group (NOG)
c/o Community Partnership Unit
Chief Executive's Directorate
Sheffield City Council
Town Hall
Sheffield
S1 2HH
Tel. (0114) 2735408 Voice / Text
Fax. (0114) 2735561
|