I have a real problem with "impairment" as I think it is flawed by values
and constructed to project these values. While as a member of the human
species (homo/a erectus or whatever)I share the frailties, diseases,
illnesses, inabilities, deficiencies etc. with the rest. That, which is
labelled "impairment", is for me something constructed by societies to group
some of these homonoid characters for reasons belonging to the politics of
these societies. What I'm trying to say is that the concept of "impairment"
has more to do, with human characteristics perceived as unwanted in society,
than it has to do with aspects of my person. Therefore I have no problem
with medical research in connection with spinal cord injury EXCEPT when it's
presented as a cure for "impairment".
Cure for "impairment" carries with it a whole realm of values about my worth
as a fellow human being in our societies. I would argue that, medical
research in general is not motivated by eugenics but talking and advocating
about a cure or relief from "impairment" is.
If we look at the selective abortion issue for example, medical research has
provided us with the possibility to screen for certain human
characteristics. When these are found we are presented with a "choice". At
the same time the babel fish portrays these characteristics as
"impairments", something unwanted. Society also provides us with a future
scenario where needs connected with "impairment" are denied or put last on
the list of social change. Then, to top it off we are offered the
possibility of aborting "impaired foetuses" up to approximately the 22nd
gestation week. There's no fixed limit over here. 22 weeks is when foetus is
considered being able to survive outside uterus. (I'll bet a mountain of
gold to a pile of horse manure that any society which allows abortion up to
a certain gestation age has a different age for "impaired foetuses" if
screening is made available.)So while, there might not be eugenics for
parents to abort, the society's system for allowing, informing and deciding
on the issue certainly is. We would not allow late abortion on account of
female sex.
So while, I think the social model should cover the personal, I don't think
it should incorporate "impairment" as such. We should maybe incorporate the
experience of living with pain or frailty or whatnot. We should discuss the
label or concept of "impairment". But I'm dead against discussing
"impairment" as if it was a characteristic we have. That's my well-informed,
not so well informed and uninformed opinion.
Now to discuss these issues in public, that's fine. But anyone who delivers
a message should consider in what shape she wants it to reach the audience
for that message. As a sometimes journalist who sometimes write pedagogical
texts I know that it is vital to phrase and structure it carefully so that
the meaning I'm trying to convey will arrive as un-garbled as possible. If,
you talk about "cure for impairment" to a non-disabled audience, this will
be interpreted as "fixing the unwanteds".
Now that's my two cents worth. But I'm always willing to be converted (as
long as you don't construct it as "saved"). I don't believe any truths are
universal, at least not in the ontological sense. The metaphysics I leave
for the hereafter. (Thanks for explaining the difference, by the way.)
Susanne
-------------------------------------------------------
Susanne Berg
Luntmakargatan 86 A
113 51 STOCKHOLM
Sweden
telephone/fax +46 (0)8 15 73 54mobile phone +46 (0)70 515 73 56
e-mail [log in to unmask]
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|