I want to address what I think are Michael Bleasdale's concerns from a
personal POV.
The description of Louise Woodward as a child sounds like my 11 year old
daughter, who is mildly autistic. My daughter loves kittens, but if they
do something unexpected, she panics. Sometimes she grabs our cat, throws
her over her shoulder and in her excitement and anxiety runs with her.
Since my daughter doesnt have much of a sense of her place in space, I'm
just holding my breath, as the poor cat is often in danger of imminent
decapitation, as they round some corner...
The reason I'm saying this, is that I wouldn't be recommending, based on
my daughter's love of kittens, and her right to be around kittens if she
wishes, that she earn pocket money by being a cat-sitter. But I might
encourage her, for instance, to write poems about cats instead.
This is not based on 'negative steroptyping" of people labelled
"autistic", but based on empirical observation of my daughter's reactions
over time. These same observations are what led me to label my daughter as
mildly autistic in the first place. I have found this labelling process
very helpful, but not perfect. Positively, it puts me in contact with a
network of people with whom I can solve similar problems etc. Negatively,
it potentially opens my daughter for the targetting that labelled
minorities can receive. So far this has not happened. The gains have been
great, and there have been few drawbacks so far. I am always so heartened
by the way that all my daughter's teachers, despite being generally
stressed and overworked, have welcomed empirical information put out by
the Autistic association, so that they can make allowances, compensate for
her difficulties.
And because there is often a degree of suspicion in disability circles
about parents, I should say that I also identify as being on the autistic
spectrum, and that the label has been very helpful to me. For instance, I
no longer waste mine and everyone else's energy trying to prove myself in
jobs that require a great deal of social interaction. Thank goodness, I've
realised that I'm not "wired" to be sociable, I never liked it, and now I
don't have to do it, and it's fine.
But of relevance to this discusssion: If Louise Woodward had been
identified as having a disability earlier, perhaps she could have received
better career guidance. The problem is not the label. The problem was the
stigma that went with cognitive impairment back when Louise was growing
up. This situation seems to me to be changing - maybe I'm just lucky, but
I haven't found that my daugher is more stigmatised by her label -
I'm finding instead that she is more understood, more accommodated. In
short, I feel quite optimistic, but am watchful in case the current
positive climate is ever challenged.
I think the fact that Louise Woodward was let off on the grounds of
intellectual impairment was sign of a compassionate positive trend from
moralising about "evil" to looking at specific difficulties that people
may have that they need help with.
This is a tender bud that needs to be nurtured and pruned, and encouraged
in a positive direction, not nipped in some knee jerk "one side right, one
side wrong" reaction. Not saying you did this, Michael, of course. I'm
glad you brought up the issue for discussion. I just want to preempt
simplistic polarisations.
Judy SInger
> OK, so that's the material. To my mind it should be just as inflammatory
> to the group as the reports about Ruff. The usual negative stereotypes
> about people with below-average IQ pertain, and the subtext contains
> assumptions about the suitability of "such people" to look after children.
> The problem of labeling also is raised - do the various aspects of Louise's
> life constitute the identification of "impairment" or "disability", whether
> that be by the medical means of IQ, or through her experiences of
> rejection, lack of opportunity, exclusion etc.? Is this an issue that the
> disability group feels it should and can address, or is it someone else's
> issue? Is it useful to draw comparisons between both the experiences of
> people with (let's broaden the debate here) intellectual disabilities and
> people with physical and sensory impairments - exclusion (lack of access),
> assumptions about capability based on negative stereotypes? What about
> governance issues for people who are labeled with intellectual disabilities
> - the underlying mandate of most services is to keep them "safe", and
> "manage" any risks taken?
>
> I am interested to get responses from the group on this issue, to see if in
> fact the analyses that have assisted in the intellectual empowerment of
> people with physical and sensory disabilities can be applied successfully
> also to people with intellectual disabiliites. And to get a sense of
> people's opinions on the "risks" that are appropriate to people labeled
> with intellectual disabilities. As I said I remain frustrated with the
> conservatism that pervades the community living system currently, such that
> it results in "over-servicing" of people, and significantly reduces their
> opportunities for risk-taking and self-determination.
>
> Michael Bleasdale
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
