Thursday November 29, 2007

Open Invitation

1pm - Same time/ same place

If no one is there at 1pm I'm splittin, so don't come late and get mad if I'm not there.

Bring questions - I'll try my best to supply answers.

We'll talk about writing and ideas and life and the class and whatever you like.

Leave comments - I may try to leave some answers on the BLOGORAMA.

As well - Thanks to all of you for making this Blog a success.

a

Comment Paper - Yvette Cuthbertson

John Swain and Colin Cameron, “Unless otherwise stated” Readings Package #20

Carol Thomas “Narrative Identity and the Disabled Self” Readings package #21

Nick Watson (2002). “Well, I know this is Going to Sound Very Strange to You, but I Don’t See Myself as a Disabled Person.” Disability and Society 17(5): 509-527

It is reading through writings like this that really get you to think about the short comings of our society. In an ablest perspective, all is well. Quite frankly I was one of those people who thought that disability was a tragedy. I used to believe that it was something that the disabled person needed to overcome to be more like the rest of us. Why I felt like this is totally beyond me. What is so great about blending in with the typical North American society anyway? I guess that there is this sense of “perfection” that we deem normal, and feel like everyone is striding in that direction.

I find it particularly interesting to define the disability as the ME. It is totally true. For the person with the impairment it is not something that happened to them, it is there life. The disability does not run their life, they run their life. Living in an ablest society it is apparent that the values and morals of the ablest person seem to take a negative effect on those with disability. Understanding that you have a disability and accepting it as part of you it a big step at tuning out society’s thinking. Sad but true. It should not be necessary to even have to come to terms with you disability, ideally it should be seen no different that anything else that makes us unique. We do not balk at brown, red, blond or black hair yet we cannot help looking at someone in a wheelchair or using a cane. Seems odd to me that in this day in age we still feel the need to look at someone for the disability they possess not the person they are.

The story about the women with one had was a very good example of someone trying to fit into this ablest society. Being born with only one had she did not feel that this was a problem. She was used to it and accepted it as her “uniqueness”, something that we all possess. Only after visiting a rehabilitation facility where the ablest framework prevailed did she feel the need to consider hiding it. Affixing prosthetic hands to her arm she could then “fit in”. Fit in you say? Ridiculous! Still we refer to fitting in as conforming to the ablest view of normalcy. If normalcy is defined as being normal, then who is going to define normal? Before we can even begin to define it we need to understand what its characteristics are, and depending on your stand in life will affect the definition of normal. So ideally no one can be normal because normal does not have a definition.

Being in society and being part of life just like “everyone else” is a severely ablest view. Yes to the lesser extent the ablest view dominates society’s understand of the world, but instead of accepting it we should be striving for changing it. The articles this week denote a sense of pride when referring to disability. Each of the stories discusses how “normal” it feels to be themselves. And normal it should feel. Everyone has uniqueness about themselves and this specialty needs to shine. If we were all exactly the same then this would be a very boring world we live in. Hitler tried to build his utopian world of sameness and look where that got him, not somewhere good to say the least. In looking at disability we need to assess individual persons because everyone has some sort of impairment which makes us all unique. And it is this uniqueness that makes our society function properly.

Comment Paper by - Yvette Cuthbertson

Comment Paper- Week 1

Comment Paper #1

Davis, Lennard J. “Constructing Normalcy: The Bell Curve, The Novel, and the Invention of the Disabled Body in the Nineteenth Century.” From The Disability Studies Reader. New York, Routledge, 1997.
Linton, Simi. “Reassigning Meaning”. From Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York, New York University Press, 1998.
Zola, Irving. “Disability Statistics, What We Count and What It Tells Us.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies 4.2 (1993): 9-31.

One of the first things to note is the very clear patterns of thought amongst these authors, and these pieces of writing. While each takes their own style of writing and own thoughts on the topic of disability and disability studies, the main focus is consistent: society, as a whole, has been quite judgmental and has succumbed to a labeling theory in reference to those with disabilities. This in turn has created a one-dimensional viewpoint of disability; that is something to be feared, something that should be referred to as a tragedy. This is of course without consideration given to those people who actually are disabled in regards to what words or phrases they would prefer their social subsection to be referred to.
Each piece of writing makes its point well-known, but in my opinion, none as well as that of Linton's “Reassigning Meaning”. Linton writes in favour of those who are perhaps unfamiliar with disability studies, and gives the audience more than ample opportunity to formulate concise opinions and reassess their withstanding knowledge of disability. This of course is important, as it allows people to educate themselves on language that will in turn create less ambiguity and a positive advancement towards a society where disabled people are not left to the wayside. She also touches on the fact that when referring to people with a disability, there is often a need to use language that prevents the speaker from feeling guilt or remorse. Society needs to move away from this comfort zone and instead allow those with a disability to promote the type of language they prefer to use.
Zola's article accompanies Linton's well. Where she has a more qualitative stance, Zola applies a quantitative, statistical approach. Linton's writings on the usage of correct language works well with Zola's article; it is through this unnecessary and sometimes harmful language that we attach labels to people with disabilities, but these labels often skew data and misrepresent people in question. There is too much ambiguity associated with disability to properly lend a definition or categorize it.
Along with this is the notion of labeling. As discussed in the Davis article “Constructing Normalcy”, the idea of being 'normal' is ludicrous. Yet society has placed a high emphasis on normalcy, promoting perfection over any type of deviation from what is considered the norm, and thus creating a perceived need for eugenics. It is time to shed that reliance on perfection and instead focus on the differences that make someone unique and useful in society. There is too much emphasis on science as a means to perfect society. The belief seems to be that with further advances in sciences, there will be less deviation from the norm. In a time where society should be becoming more tolerant, it seems we are instead moving backwards.

Aging with Disabilities

Comment Paper on the following readings by Joanne Marie Forneri 0132687
(1) On Chapter 6 of Disability: A Life Course Approach by Mark Priestley
(2) “When People with Pre-existing Disabilities Age in Place”
by Stephen French Gilson & F. Ellen Netting (Nov. 1997) Health and Social Work 22 (4): 290 - 98
(3) “Aging with Disabilities: Ageism and More” Generations 29 (3): 37 – 41
by Debra J. Sheets
In the above readings I discovered the growing population is amongst the elderly and the elderly with disabilities. Those who are suffering from disability and are elderly as well will face what we call ‘double jeopardy’ meaning they suffer from prejudice and discrimination. Society in general stereotypes them to be ‘old farts’, or ‘hags’, for their hair has turned grey, wrinkles on their faces and hands, plus impairments such as poor eyesight, and hearing. This is not true, for not all seniors age this way, for today we have what is called intervention where we can go to doctors and make us look ten years younger by having face lifts, tummy tucks and hair transplants. To grow old gracefully is accepting what you look like and making the most of what you have.
Those individuals who grow old at an early age because of their disability causes much distress on their lives, for they might look like a senior citizen but they do not qualify or allowed to join any old age club or age-based services. No one who is young wants to be seen around those who look old or are old, they seem to be afraid of them, and so they ostracize them, strip them of their power and make them feel ashamed of whom they are. This is only done because these individuals are ignorant of what old age really means or the benefits they can learn from those who are disabled and old.
Some of the individuals who have aged and have impairments because of the aging process or are disabled and aging want to refuse assistive devices because they do not want the world to know they have a disabilitating problem. I agree with this statement because no one wants to be different from everyone else. They do this because of what society has installed in everyone’s mind that you must look beautiful and have a perfect body with no deformities. Aging chronologically does not tell us about the individual, neither does those who are professionals in the aging of disabled people, they know little of what each other does, and can hinder the person’s assessment and services they can receive. Not everyone can files for services that they need if they fall under the category of being ‘disabled’ or ‘elderly’. I find this wrong for if you age prematurely and am in need of special services that only the elderly can have you should be able to acquire these services as well.
Those individuals who are disabled and aging want to live in their own homes, they do not want to be put into institutions where they will have no privacy or dignity. They can become very depressed when their independence is taken away from them. In the case of Olmstead vs. L.C., 1999 ADA , “it has become a catalyst for the development of home-and community-based services provide alternatives to institutional care for the aged disabled.” {“When People with Pre-existing Disabilities Age in Place”, Health and Social Work 22 (4):290-298) Even though the disabled and the elderly have different concerns they do share concerns as well, such as: affordable housing, public transportation, access to health care, long term care and economic stability. So they should be connected to each other and not ostracized because the elderly contributed to society and the disabled did not. Everyone deserves to have respect, to be protected and given equal opportunities in rehabilitation, independent living and all other daily life sources.
Disability is not always a life course problem, it can occur when an individual grows old. We see the individuals with disabilities grow up with primary reference groups that also stay with them while they are aging, but what about those who are healthy and get impairments from their aging, where do they go for help? The only place that they can go to is to the reference groups of the disabled. People who become disabled need services for now they have lost their independence and rely on others to help them and they become vulnerable to abuse, considered incompetent, and they might not be able to communicate so that their care giver can help them. This is where society must start retraining the social worker, care giver or nurse to understand where these individuals are coming from.
An example of four people from the article on “Aging with Disabilities: Ageism and More”, where they all want to live in their own homes, two of them are in the 40s and two of them are chronologically older. Corrine diagnosed in her 20s with Charcot-Marie-Tooth type I, has three children, oldest son has mild case of CMT, type III, as she tries to remain independent there is no cure, she is now told she looks like she is in her 60s. Her eldest son rarely visits her, for he is afraid that he will look just like his mother, her daughter is also having hard times accepting her mothers aging so rapidly, and the only one that is most accepting of her condition is her youngest son. She was asked to join the senior group at her church but when they found out she was only in her 40s they denied her entrance. Corrine is now facing isolation from her family and friends, her independence she now needs a social worker to help her in doing things she was able to do.
Bob who is 58 has to go into an institution and his wife now has to become the decision maker on putting him there even though he does not want to go. Caroline is 60 and has Tetraplegia resulting from arthritis, vision and upper extremities are affected, she is well educated but has never worked her mother has taken care of her up until 5 years ago when the onset of dementia hit her. They applied for assistance for her mother but because of her mother’s income she did not qualify for assistance in their home. They hired live in help and are living pay cheque to pay cheque.
Mabel 78 has had MS since her 30s taught for 10 years with it. She had to retire from teaching and moved in to her sister’s place with her widowed mother. Disliked assistive devices did not use a wheelchair till she was 60 in which she became house bound, is considered to be a cranky old lady causing a great turn over in social assistants. She only has control over what she eats what she watches and when she gets up.
All four of these people want to live in their own home and some are able to and others not because of financial problems. We need to get help for these people so they can keep their dignity and their home.

Disability and youth

Disability and Youth Comment Paper
Shannon Whelan

Barron, K. (1997). The Bumpy Road to Womanhood. Disability & Society, 12(2), 223-239.
Priestley, M. (2003). Disability: A Life Course Approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

The topic of the readings deals with the transition from adolescence to adulthood for disabled women. This topic was very interesting for me because I could relate to many of the examples about young woman’s transition to adulthood. Young women have a difficult time with this transition to gain autonomy when many individuals need continuous care throughout their lives. There are certain norms associated with womanhood which is hard to relate to when every person has individual difference and disability. This week there were two articles which discussed the topic of womanhood, youth and, disability that will be outlined throughout this comment paper. The aim of this paper is to discuss the themes that emerge from both of the readings.
The first journal article titled “The Bumpy Road to Womanhood” is very useful for our class because it displays women with disabilities thoughts and experiences while traveling through their transition in life. This piece of writing can be very liberating to many women as well as educative to understand young women with disabilities. This article explored characteristics of younger women such as gender roles, autonomy, physical beauty, and womanhood. When neglecting to take into account the impact and consequences of gender roles it indicates that disabled people are seen as asexual beings with many social obstacles (Barron, 1997). An example that indicated problems with gender roles for a woman with a disability was when a male teacher or care giver offers his assistance to go to the bathroom. This demonstrates that the male didn’t take into account that she is a young woman, he only paid attention to her disability, making her a asexual person. Gender is an important part of our identity, and not being seen as a woman reflects societal views on disability.
Since modernization the need for autonomy has become more prevalent in our society. Recently adulthood is associated with autonomy and individualism. Many people with disabilities require assistance in adult life, viewed as a passive recipient. A number of of these people really love working as collective groups to take action on disability rights and ensuring that all people receive equal rights. Disabled people have the most knowledge about disability because they live it every day, making them the most qualified people in this area of study.
When it comes to physical beauty as a means of control, physical impairment is apart from norms of acceptance and attractiveness. In media images of beauty, disability and impairment don’t exist, because mainly disabled people in our society is not as valued as those of “perfect youthful beauty”. Difference and uniqueness should be celebrated in our society.
The next reading is a chapter called ‘Disability and Youth’ which has many of the same contents as the previous reading about the transition of youth disabled people to adulthood. This chapter pays attention to “the production of youth as a generational category in technological and knowledge societies” (Priestly, 2003). The chapter has three main areas of study which are ‘thinking about youth’, ‘sex and sexuality’ ‘preparation for adulthood’.
The structural approach to youth deals with people with impairments becoming disabled through social organization and regulation of transitions into adulthood. Our society is organized for the “normal” or “able” bodied person. When thinking about how the school system is organized, social and friendship networks are formed, and the portrayals of media are all organized without the people with impairments in mind. In my high school, it was an older building (developed before the recognition of disability and accessibility) without any elevator or any programs for people with disabilities. These factors in our society in exchange create the notion of disability within our society.
The sexuality of young women is very important to their identity. When a disabled woman’s sexuality is denied, these women loose part of their identity. The part in the reading about sterilization of disabled women was terrible. I never knew that this was practiced even in our own country. This was thought to be a medical intervention to seek control of disabled woman’s or ‘dangerous women’ fertility (Priestley, 2003). It is hard to believe that this intervention from medical and legal persons had the right to take away this important factor in many women’s identity.
The transition from adolescence to adulthood is a complex process for many young women. For young women with a disability, the socialization of these girls is an important process in the transition to adulthood. It is important to embrace your gender, sexuality, identity and roles in life. Females with disabilities can have a very important role in this world to celebrate diversity and educate everyone about their disability.

Disability and Health Care Professionals

French, Sally and John Swain (2001). The Relationship between Disabled People and Health and Welfare Professionals, Ch 32 (pp 734-753) in Handbook of Disability Studies Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

We discussed in our last seminar class a debate about the continuation of research funding and engagement in finding ‘cures’ for impairments. Many people could not comprehend why someone who, for example, is in a wheelchair would not want to walk again. Dr. Stone related this to a hegemonic viewpoint in which people in the West suffer from in regards to disability issues. The topic definitely shocked a few people in the class regarding the thought that someone who is disabled would actually want to be disabled and not be ‘fixed’ by their healthcare professionals. I believe this goes hand in hand with this week’s topic on health and welfare professionals and the relationship with disabled people. Sally French’s article, The Relationship between Disabled People and Health and Welfare Professionals, addresses many issues through a qualitative approach to how many people with impairments feel towards health care workers.
It seems that when discussing health care in class there was this “either/or” approach to dealing with disabilities. The argument was that people with impairments should want to and need to have the hope that one day they will ‘be normal’. If there is not a cure right now that society and health care workers are working on finding such cures to provide the ‘repair’ or the ‘solution’. But we forget that someone’s health is not just a singular definition of one’s physical wellbeing but also the spiritual, psychological and social welfare. If western society regarded health and health care in a much more holistic concept then the relationship of disabled people and health professionals would also be viewed and implemented in an unrestricted concept.
We need to begin to ask the questions about our belief in health and what it means to be well. Is there only one way of being healthy? I believe that western societal definition of health contributes to the lack of understanding in disability rights. Health is mostly understood in a physical sense. This being when someone is free of disease and impairment. However, rather than focusing on diseases and illnesses, there should be a desire to look at more encompassing factors of life. When health is defined as the mental, physical and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity, cultural and social practices become critical contributing factors. This approach transcends boundaries of only physical abilities and looks at health as a more holistic concept. If such a concept did exist, what would this mean to be healthful?
The concept of health is significantly important when addressing health care professionals. The impact and power a professional exudes is due largely to the connection of importance we place on the concept at hand. Because, the concept of health is mostly dominated in the physical realm and the mental and social well being is largely ignored, so too is health treatment impacted. The west’s sense of care is about correcting physical ailments and largely ignores the patient’s sense of self as an individual and how they maintain their presence socially.
Getting back to the French’s article, she examines the relationship, ideologies and organization between disabled people and professionals. French looks at three aspects to professional power that are detrimental to the relationship between disabled people and health professionals. First concern is the power in which an individual health care professional is seemingly able to assess, prognosis and deem to solve. This dominance is extremely problematic because it gives an exponential amount of power to one individual. The second aspect involves the dogma western society surrounds professionals and their indispensable expertise. The professional is not questioned and considered many times to be the be all, end all of their solutions and interventions.
Lastly, professional care workers are many times seen as representatives of the state, economic or political leaders. However, they too have their own self interest and agenda, therefore are skewed in what they are recommending or standing behind. All three of these concepts regarding professionalism in health care combine to regard professionals in the health and welfare field as the dominant position to dispense definitions, ideologies, prognosis, research and solutions. Not to mention, “the power of professionals in controlling language, knowledge and the social response to disability has defined professional-disabled people relations” (French, 738). One of the most disempowering experiences for disabled people is through health ideology and rationalizing that health is a physical embodiment that views disability and impairment as a tragedy and something that needs to be avoided or fixed.
Although, I related this week’s readings to last week’s class discussion I believe them both to be extremely relevant to each other. Western health concepts are essentially flawed when actually addressing one’s health. Therefore, when looking at relationships between health care specialists, professionals and disabled people we need to look at our societal ideology and where we place importance, power and define health. We also need to look at the prevailing ideology within health to discover the prejudice between disabled people and health care professionals. French explores the discourse of needs and assessment along with the pervasive ideology of normality within disability but also fundamentally health and how it is regarded. There needs to be a change in the communication within professional-disabled people relations, but I would argue that more importantly we need to address how society views health in the first place to be able to rectify the relationship and power dynamics of disabled people and health care professionals.

Comment Paper

French, Sally and John Swain (2001). The Relationship between Disabled People and Health and Welfare Professionals, Chapter 32 (pp 734-753) in Handbook of Disability Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

In this article, the relationship between disabled people and health and welfare professionals is examined and discussed. It focuses largely on the gross imbalance of power between the disabled and professionals. The professionals are very much in control of the disabled people’s lives, while the disabled people seemingly have little say in making choices regarding their own lives.
French and Swain give accounts of how the professionals assert their role as one of being in control or in power. The professionals define disability as an individual personal tragedy, giving it a negative connotation, as in something to be avoided at all costs. By being the ones that define it, they also gave themselves the role of being the only ones that would appear to know how to fix it and have any chance of controlling disabilities. I found it disturbing how the disabled people were treated, particularly during any sort of assessment procedure, where they would be treated as if they were completely ignorant to their own needs. French and Swain go on to describe how the professionals use defining and other methods as a way of preserving their own power. I am immediately apprehensive about trusting any group that has self-preservation as their foremost concern when their purpose is supposed to be helping others that need it. Also mentioned is how doctors have somehow transcended the boundaries of their medical world and are involved in the decision-making process in areas such as housing, education and employment of the disabled. I can only imagine how it would be received if a real estate agent and a teacher came into a doctor’s office to assist in diagnosing and advising medical conditions. The authors do concede that the medical profession is not without merit, as survival rates and life expectancy rates have increased. But, not content with that assessment of their own achievements, the medical professionals also credit themselves with reducing disease and impairments, while not considering that perhaps economic and social development had something to do with it. This fact helps underline the recurring idea that maybe these people have been taking themselves a little too seriously and still do.
The notion of dependency comes up; as an enforced dependency of the disabled being dependent on the medical professionals as well as the fact that the professionals rely on the disabled to maintain their own employment or organization. This helps one understand how the professionals would want or need to cling on to their position of power.
Disabled people’s experiences of being diagnosed and put through physiotherapy are given. They were treated like objects, and were given about as much dignity and respect as a circus animal. The needs that the disabled people felt that should have been addressed, such as emotional support rather than just physical training, were completely overlooked. I cannot imagine the devastating effect it would have on a person to be suddenly unable to walk, to have no consolation, but be expected to not be a burden on society by getting up and suddenly being independent.
Institutional discrimination is described in the chapter as treating disabled individuals unfairly or unequally in institutional organizations. There are different levels of this kind of discrimination that intermingle and rest on each other; attitudinal, environmental, and structural barriers. The authors examine a GP practice in a building that, although built recently enough in the 1990s, is ridiculously inadequate for anyone with any sort of disability, be they patient or employee. This is a good example of how disabled people can be kept out of being employed in the professional’s realm. In the next section, I found it sad that some educational institutions had actual policies that discriminated against disabled people to keep them out of certain professions. It was noted that there were advantages to having disabled people in these professions as they could empathize with patients better than a non-disabled person. When investigating the GP practice, the alternative of treating disabled people at home is mentioned but not seen as viable as it would deny disabled people the opportunity to participate fully in society. Although not stated here in the article, one might imagine that treating people at home could exacerbate the problem of institutional discrimination. If the disabled people are not coming to the institutions anymore, there would be no need to be concerned for their welfare when designing buildings and training staff.
Changes have come slowly. Discrimination had hampered the ability of the disabled to organize into a collective force. This changed greatly after one initial group introduced the social model of disability, which was based on the collective experiences of oppression of actual disabled people. This contrasted and spoke against how the disabled people were defined by the medical profession as individual tragedies. The social model greatly helped disabled people form organizations of all sizes around the world. There is still a tone of condescension from the professionals in that they are judging these organizations and their worth.
The centers for integrated, or independent, living show how disabled people are able to make more of their own choices. By having more control over their own lives, they feel less disabled. Although they may have more control over their lives here, overall, they still do not have control over the medical professionals.
The recurring theme I noticed in this chapter was consultation of disabled people is the key to solving any problems disabled people may have. Maybe the professionals will allow this some day.

Comment paper for Week 4: The Built Environment as Disabling

French, Sally. (1993). “What’s so great about independence?” (Ch 1.5) in, John Swain, Vic Finkelstein, Sally French and Mike Oliver (eds.). Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments. London: Sage.

Gleeson, Brendon. (1999). “Can technology overcome the disabling city?” (Ch 5) in Ruth Butler and Hester Parr (eds.). Mind and Body Spaces: Geographies of Illness, Impairment and Disability. New York: Routledge.

Imrie, Rob. (1998). “Oppression, Disability and Access in the Built Environment.” (Ch 9) in Tom Shakespeare (ed.). The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives. London: Cassel.

As Sally French’s article states: “the notion of independence can be taken too far, restricting the lives of disabled people rather than enriching them” (French 1993 44). This point can best be exemplified by applying it to the concept of technology. All of these articles complement one another by strengthening each other’s arguments for a more inclusive society while pointing to some ways in which the disabled are overlooked: technology dependence, poorly designed urban cities, including building designs. French points out in Gleeson’s article that “technological aids are a mixed blessing and can become a burden when they are promoted to the exclusion of socio-economic policies for disabled people” (Gleeson 1999 99). Essentially the point here is that anything beneficial is meant to be used in moderation; too much technology interrupts a person’s need for social interaction and therefore hinders interpersonal skills and experiences. While technology is valuable in many instances, it does not correct or improve the systemic roots of ignorance towards disability; it is simply a quick fix.
Furthermore, applying the more commonly used definition of disability as it applies to the social sciences, it is evident that technology actually disables the person who becomes dependent on such things as computers. If “disability refers to the social experiences of people with some form of impairment to a limb, organism or mechanism of the body” (Gleeson 1999 101) then technology is disabling in two ways. First off, it limits the social experiences altogether and secondly it evokes a strong dependency on mechanical aids rather than personal betterment. For me, this does not just apply to disabled people but able bodied individuals as well because an over dependency on technological innovations disables everyone, making them reliant on anything but themselves and their own cognitive abilities.
In terms of the physical layouts of cities, building designs and so forth Gleeson points out that architects obviously “discriminate against disabled people by not accounting for their mobility requirements” (Gleeson 1999 102). Irmie’s article builds on this exact notion as he points out architects building designs are planned and built upon the ideal type of person or the “Modular” (Irmie 1998 137), a very specific type of able bodied citizen. This biased view point further oppresses the disabled and continually reaffirms their impairments while making their lives even more complex without reason, merely out of ignorance. Rather than oppressing them further, we need to be more inclusive in our planning and implementation of public policy and access therein.
Getting back to technology, with the latest state of the art gadgets, tools and techniques it is much more possible to build a more inclusive structure. By inclusive I am inferring that ramps, wider door ways, hand rails and brighter colour schemes should be recognized as necessary. To implement designs which are inclusive to all citizens, able bodied as well as disabled individuals, is not that difficult to implement in this advanced age of technology. Yet, the majority of building designs are aesthetically pleasing due to the great amount of independence and discretion give to the architect involved in the building process. Aesthetics as the primary goal of an architect devalues the importance of humanity as it completely disregards the functionality of a building. Quintessentially, such poor designs which exclude a large group of the population promote the idea of conformity; expecting all to conform to the norm or ideal type disregarding diversity altogether. Uninclusive building designs privatize the issue of disability relegating the roots of the problem within the individual psyche; this clearly demonstrates a blame the victim mentality. Unfortunately, this is a public concern that needs much attention from a wide range of societal factors and institutions to ever combat the issue.
Technology can be interactive and thus acknowledged as beneficial on an individual level. Yet how interactive is technology really? For example a video game is pre programmed, pre configured with only a limited number of possible situations available to the user. Certainly I agree that it evokes a sense of imagination and fantasy which is appealing on some level but this is all mechanically created there is nothing natural about it. How about the loss of sensual pleasures or an appreciation for the natural world? This is lost through immersing oneself completely within a technologically produced environment. Natural is degraded and under valued because it is not as “interactive” as technology; it is not concerned with speed and surplus value. The natural world accepts all people as they are; as individuals there are no real expectations or biases. Concepts of normal and ideal exist because of the emergence of capitalist society. Productivity and efficiency are values which are celebrated by a fast paced, mechanically led society rather than a celebration of diversity and uniqueness among humanity.

comment paper-week 3

Bibliography
Barron, Karin. "The Bumpy Road to Womanhood." Disability and Society 12.2 (1997): 223-39.
Priestley, Mark. "Disability and Youth." Disability: A Life Course Approach (2003): 88-115.

Comment Paper #3
The readings for week six provide a thorough analysis of the many obstacles that disabled youth must face as they head towards adulthood. Priestley and Barron discuss in great detail the numerous barriers that society places on disabled youth making it difficult for them to complete the transition to adulthood if at all. This paper will illustrate how the two articles support and contradict each other. Also, it will show how the articles add to ones understanding about what barriers need to be broken within society in order to allow youth with disabilities to have a more comfortable and less challenging transition towards adulthood. Adulthood as a path, and not a finite destination. A life 'course.'
Priestley and Barron analyze the problem surrounding society's barriers that oppress disabled youth and shake their confidence making it hard to move onto the adult phase of their lives. Priestley starts off by showing that disabled youth face the culturally structured idea that beauty is above all important. "The aesthetic normalization of youthful beauty, as a bodily ideal within consumerist culture, is thus a factor of oppression of disabled people of all generations, but has a particularly resonance for young people with visible differences" (Priestley, 96). Barron states that "having a physical impairment may mean having to come to terms with a body that departs from cultural norms of acceptability and attractiveness" (229). Since this ideal is so widely enforced throughout society disabled people have not only been labeled as "less attractive or desirable" but as well "their potential for expressions of sexuality has been both denied and heavily regulated" (Priestley, 97). Barron concludes from the women's experiences that disabled young women are being viewed as asexual (229). It is extremely important to realize that "despite the emphasis on agency and choice in the mainstream youth literature, young disabled people continue to experience significant forms of collective biography, based on ascribed roles and produced through social relations of production, that hinder the achievement of future adult status" (Priestley, 112).
Instead of focusing on the obstacles that affect all disabled youth, Barron's article explores the challenges that Swedish young women with physical disabilities face when moving towards womanhood. She explains other barriers that young women with physical disabilities have to overcome in society that young men may not have to experience. Young women are faced with challenging the traditional female role in society. "Dependence, passivity and non-assertive behaviour traditionally are viewed as appropriate and desirable behaviour for all women, but their affects are even more detrimental for disabled women because they are also stereotypes of persons with disabilities. Disabled women are confronted with preconceived ideas of what is appropriate behaviour for women as well as for 'the disabled'" (Barron, 227). Barron proves that the experiences of the interviewees with their doctors have not always been a positive one. For instance, "the knowledge, to which the interviewees have with regard to their own bodies, is not always taken into account" (Barron, 233). As well, disabled young women have many role models that enforce the ideal that women should be care givers. For example, Barron states that "disabled young women may have continual contact with a number of women who have the task of providing care" (235). However, it is important to note that "while the impairment can be described as dominating their social identity, or having become their 'master status', the young women do not view their experience of disability as a personal tragedy" (Barron, 227).
To conclude, it is clear that numerous barriers are created by society that young disabled individuals must struggle with in order to reach adulthood. Barron shows that "the young women reject the traditional role of subservience of the 'disabled', as well as of women generally" (237). This quotation proves that the women challenge labels in order to be seen as a human being that deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Thus, in order to eliminate the fight for equality that young disabled individuals face daily, society must begin to eradicate the idea of the norm. After all, what is normal? Lastly, Priestly shows that there is "an apparent contradiction between social investments in preparing young disabled people for adulthood and a widespread denial of their capacity to achieve an end" (112). Therefore, the "complex relationship between the individual agency, cultural expectations, and structural constraints" must be changed in order to better the transition that young disabled individuals experience when moving towards adulthood (Priestley, 112).

Comment Paper- Week 9

Comment Paper- Week Nine

Goble, Colin (2004). Dependence, Independence and Normality, pp 41- 46 in John Swain, Sally
Sally French, Colin Barnes and Carol Thomas (eds.). Disabling Barrier Enabling Environments, 2nd Edition (London: Sage).

Priestly, Mark. Disability: A Life Course Approach: Great Britain: MPG Books Ltd., 2003. 117-
142.

Wilton, Robert D. Working at the Margins: Disabled People and the Growth of Precarious
Employment, pp 129- 150 in Pothier, Dianne and Richard Devlin. 2006. Critical
Disability Theory: Essay in Philosophy, Politics, Policy, and Law (Vancouver: UBC Press).

You are a young adult or teenager....now try and imagine being compared to an elderly individual or a child in society? Next take a minute to consider having another person make important personal, life and financial decisions for you. Lastly think about the idea of being institutionalized because you are seen as unfit to care for yourself. Do all of these statements sound insensitive or unjustifiable? Well unfortunately all of the above situations are a harsh reality of the constant dilemmas facing today’s impaired and disabled society. This reality is true for many individuals in society as they experience such situations on a daily basis. As discussed in all three articles, disability is seen as a non adult status that requires the assistance from an able- bodies adult, an institution, or the government in order to live somewhat of a normal life. In short, many individuals view disabled people in society as not normal therefore require special or extra treatment to deal with what we perceive as common everyday independent tasks and employment opportunities. The role of disabled people is to accept professional guidelines in anticipation of achieving normalcy.
In Western society, adulthood is defined by independence, competence and autonomy. As both Goble’s article and Priestley’s book state, with the rise of the urban industrial environment, people with physical, sensory and economic impairments became socially and economically marginalized and soon became a burden to families. With this shift came “changes in technology, gender roles, work, the family and nation-state” (Priestly 2003: 116). As well, capitalism broke down pre-existing systems of solidarity and with this change there was a loss of independence for disable individuals and the creation of dependence due to the current culture. “ There is unlikely to be any form of progress towards independence until there is a cultural shift in accepting that disabled people can and should be [considered independent and self-sufficient]” (Priestly 2003: 138).
Independence may conjure various meanings depending on the individual. In the eyes of disabled people, independence is about rights, access and control. For example, giving a disabled person access to adequate education would allow for proper education, resulting in a respectable job which leads to self sufficient financial support. Instead as mentioned in Wilton’s article, disabled individuals are excluded in the educational system which places them at an obvious disadvantage. Similarly mentioned in Priestley’s book, disabled people, women in particular, continue to be subjected to unequal access to education. With this lack of education, there is a struggle to achieve integration into ordinary employment and suffice it to say with the exclusion from labour comes the challenge of attaining independence.
With regards to employment, as all three articles mention, people with disabilities tend to be poorly represented in formal employment. The employment opportunities for disabled people are very scarce and offer low wages, fewer hours and less job security. Additionally, disabled individuals are concentrated in a small number of occupations, are less likely to occupy visible positions involving contact with customers and there is few opportunities for promotions or advancements. Move over, many workplaces remain inaccessible and the quality of training for disabled individuals is poor. As it is evident, lack or absence of paid employment is a primary reason for continued dependency and high poverty rates.
With the rapid economic change, there is an increase in new opportunities. As mentioned in all three articles, disabled people are now more likely to achieve independence through assistive technologies and self management of personal assistance. The current advancement in “new technology would facilitate the economic liberation of disable people” (Wilton 2006: 132) and help return them to an approximation of normalcy. However, even with the progression of technology, there are many other factors restricting disabled people such as cultural attitudes and behaviours of society.
Although all three readings are similar, they are also posses several differences. Colin Goble focuses on institutionalization and medicalization of disabled individuals. Within the institutions, disabled individuals were taught that they were ill, helpless, inferior, and are dependent, thus causing many disable individuals to believe disability to be a tragedy. Goble mentioned that the role of professional support personal alleviated the effects of functional defects faced by disabled people in order to help them achieve greater normalcy and personal function of independence. There is great pressure placed on disabled people to be grateful for caring and attention devoted to them from busy, considerate professionals, yet no one in modern industrial society is completely independent, we as human beings live in a state of mutual interdependency. The “human condition is ultimately one of interdependence between people” (Priestly 2003: 122). Partnership is a key requirement; therefore tasks and opportunities are achieved by people working together, not solely in isolation.
Next, Priestly’s chapter five focuses on parenthood whereas the other two readings excluded the issue altogether. Priestly believes in the notion that parenting signifies adult status, yet disabled people are obstructed in their claims to parental rights and responsibilities. Many impaired groups have been categorized as unfit and inadequate for parenting because they are not viewed to some extent as “physically healthy, expectation of a long life span, be financially self-sufficient, appear normal, and be able to carry out physical and domestic tasks of caring for children unaided”(Priestly 2003: 127). Blame for parental failure is placed on individuals and their impairment, not society, culture or the environment. It is depressing that literature compares disabled parents to psychiatrist survivors or parents with drug and alcohol related backgrounds. Disabled individuals are equal to able body people and should have equal rights to parenting. Disabled individuals discover and implement ways to deal and cope with their disabilities so they can be the best possible parents. In reality, disabled people can be better parents than able body individuals because they know first hand how it feels to be stigmatized and excluded therefore they are able to offer specific support, attention and love that a normal person may be unable to offer.
The final reading by Wilton focuses on gender differences within employment opportunities. Wilton believes there is a disproportionate concentration of men and women with disabilities in various occupations. Disabled women work fewer hours than disabled men even with the lack of employment. “Gendered division of employment is still clearly visible in the differential rates of both full- and part- time work, which means men on average are significantly better off materially” (Wilton 2006: 146). Although, there is a narrower wage gap between disabled individuals in relation to able body society. This may be apparent because disabled people tend to be centralized around similar occupations such as service work and unskilled manufacturing work. In short, both disabled men and women are at a disadvantage when it comes to employment opportunities. “Disabled people have been excluded from participation in adult labour, so they have been excluded from full adult rights and citizenship” (Priestly 2003: 119). Many employers remain reluctant to hire disabled people and even if given a chance they are less likely to have full time work because part time work is a way for a company to decrease costs, and employers also do not have to pay for benefits and incentive packages.
What can be learned from this week’s readings is there are many definitions for independence. What an able body person perceives the definition to be may differ from that of a disabled person. Since disability and adulthood have been socially produced it is up to society as a whole to ensure people with impairments are given the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns and are granted respect in all sectors of life including education, employment and independent living. For this notion to happen, society in general must accept conditions of individuality and selfhood to be altered or eliminated, not the disabled people themselves.

Comment Paper posting

French, S., & Swain, J. The Relationship between Disabled People and Health and Welfare Professionals, Disability in Context, 734-751.

People with disabilities have always faced obstacles. Now, is this the thought from an ableist perspective? Or, do people with disabilities believe this as well? If they do, what are the obstacles that they wish to overcome? This paper, written by Sally French and John Swain, looks at the relationship between people with disabilities, and health and welfare professionals. It seeks to explain that people with disabilities are not looking to change things about themselves or their environment, but their relationships between themselves and their healthcare and welfare workers. One Joshua Malinga, the secretary general of the Southern Africa Federation of the Disabled states about healthcare professionals, “The point is that they believe that they have solutions our problems. They do not see us as belonging to society, they think we belong to them, they have to keep files on us throughout our lives, and decide when we should see a doctor…” (French and Swain: 740). French and Swain believe that “critical questions can no longer focus on professionals, their skills, expertise, and interventions for cure or care. The possibilities for moving forward are generated within changing power structures and relations between disabled people and professionals”.
This paper by French and Swain recounts experiences that people with disabilities have faced in their relationships with the medical profession. It seems that most experiences for people with disabilities are negative ones. The paper tries to change the view held by most ableist people that doctors and medical professionals are doing what is right. Actually, to people with disabilities, “doctors are nothing more than groups of anonymous men who would ask very personal and insensitive questions, photographed unclothed, and were compelled to walk nude in front of medical students”. It seems to the reader of this paper, that people with disabilities are not seeing doctors to be helped or fix their ‘disability’ but to educate the next wave of medical professionals.
This paper by French and Swain also looks at the effectiveness of disabled people as professionals. Studies have found that as social workers, people with disabilities are quite effective. As a social worker, there are various advantages in being impaired (in some way), including an increased knowledge of disability, the ability to empathize, and the breaking down of professional barriers” (French and Swain, 744). However, there is some difficulty when it comes to being a disabled professional, such as barriers to promotion. There are many studies written about racism and sexism in the workplace, however, little research has been done about discrimination towards people with disabilities. One thing is true though, it does exist.
Finally, the paper talks about disabled people power and how to change the professional-disabled people relationships. French and Swain state in their paper that relationships between disabled people and professionals have been totally dominated by the professionals. The paper also states that with the growth of the disabled people’s movement, the greatest challenge to professional dominance has come from disabled people themselves. When it comes to changing the relationships between professionals and people with disabilities, it falls on the person with the disability. “The first (change) is at the personal level of individual disabled people taking an active role in realizing their own goals. From this reading, what helped me understand the most important point is this: “Disabled people define independence, not in physical terms, but in terms of control. People who are almost totally dependent on others, in a physical sense, can still have independence of thought and action, enabling them to take full and active charge of their lives (French and Swain, 749).” What people with disabilities want to change out of the professional relationship is to have the professional’s knowledge at the service of the client…To remove the power from the hands of the professional and put it in the hands of the client. I agree with this view to a degree, however, with knowledge comes power. For a patient, disabled or not, dictating to a doctor how to do his job will not be the answer to fixing the relationships, but could cause a decrease in the quality of care being given. What would be good for both parties is to make a visit to the doctor as comfortable and unintrusive as possible, but the doctor still needs to do his job.

More comments about "Rory O'Shea was here"

To add to the comments and discussions people are having about the video "Rory O'Shea was here" I would like to post my thoughts from a comment paper I wrote:
A point I found very interesting was how Goble’s article talked mostly about supports from other people, while Priestly’s article got into the use of assistive devices. Priestly is saying that if one can get by using assistive devices then he/she may be viewed as more independent because then they are not only dependent on other people (1963: 121). I think this is very interesting because as we saw in the in-class video titled “Rory O’Shea Was Here”, when Michael was given an electric toothbrush (an assistive device) he thought that he would now be able to brush his teeth by himself. This was not the case as he was unable to properly hold the toothbrush and a person therefore had to keep picking it up off the ground for him when he dropped it. Although assistive devices may be great for some people, and for some situations, I think that one still desires to have human contact and the use of assistive devices, if working effectively, may cut out human contact to a large extent.

Rory O'Shea was here

What I got out of this movie is the concept of independence. The culture we live in likes to define who is capable of being independent and who isn't. Age plays a factor, money, sometimes, and as in the case of this movie, disability. The institution where Rory and Michael were in the beginning of the movie, was trying to deprive them of their independence. So as a disabled person, it doesn't even matter if they are an adult, able-people still like to look at them as kids and therefore deprive them of independence. The fact that Mike had to fight extremely hard to get the committee to give Rory money to live on his own is another example. But from I understood from the movie is that disabled people very much like their independence just as much as able-bodied people, and Rory and Mike set out to prove that.
Tracy A.

Rory O'Shea Was Here

After our discussion in class on Thursday about the difficult task of trying to be an adult when you are disabled got me thinking a scene in Rory O’Shea Was Here.
Does anyone remember the part when Rory steals or gets that car and drives around smashing into things with the kids in the back?
What I found really interesting is that when the police realized that Rory was disabled he said something like “l can’t send you to jail, where do you live, where are supposed to be” or something to that extent. If Rory had not been disabled he would have been taken to jail right away but the police was reluctant to do so because Rory was disabled I found it very powerful to have Rory scream that he wants to be brought to jail, that he wants to be treated normally. I am really beginning to understand that for a disabled person, being an independent adult does not mean doing everything for themselves but rather than being treated like a real adult having the same rules and consequences as everyone else and being able to make your own decisions whether they are good or bad.

Independent Living

Comment Paper 4, Week 7

French, Sally and John Swain (2001). The Relationship between Disabled People and Health and Welfare Professionals, Ch 32 (pp 734-753) in Handbook of Disability Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage).
The medical professionals in our society are held in high prestige. This career takes years of school and thousands of dollars, so after graduation it is presumed that these doctors and specialists are knowledgeable on health and should not be second guessed. However, what happens when doctors power relations within society oppresses certain people? The relationship between the disabled and professionals is extremely complex since we are experiencing two groups with different statuses in society. One group is held high in power relations while the second group is seen as the “other” and is stigmatized throughout society. These questions are analyzed in the article by French and Swain.
Within the medical field, health professionals have the ideology that the disabled are dependent and have tragic life’s however these ideologies may contrast with the views of the individuals with the impairment. This is when the complex relationship starts, since it is a un equal relationship. Doctors see the disabled as passive (French&Swain, 2001:735) and assume that the disabled do not comprehend enough to understand what they need in life therefore allowing the doctor to take over these important decisions. (French&Swain, 2001:736) This allows the professionals to go beyond medical care and take control of housing, education, and employment. (French&Swain, 2001: 737).
Though this may be perceived as going beyond their jobs, it initially makes the disabled dependent on their health care providers which limits their social and economic life and independence. This however benefits health care professionals since the disabled then create more jobs for them to do which generates more income for them. There is also a connection that doctors do not see the disabled as people belonging to society but belonging to them (French&Swain, 2001:739) and this again connects back to the un equal relationships in the health care system. There is also the theory of Institutional discrimination in which the disabled are discriminated against in the hospitals or rehabilitations centers which they are residing in since there located in a social and physical world that is run by and for the non disabled. (French&Swain, 2001:741) This makes it harder for the disabled to feel they can lead an independent life outside hospital walls or even inside hospital walls.
This problem has been looked at by activist, and a solution to this un-equalness is to allow the disabled to treat the disabled however this challenges the traditional professional relationship with the disabled and this movement is still moving slowly since there is still discrimination about the disabled and the connection to career and education. Another action that is taking place to free the impaired from the medical model is the beginning of the DCIL, and there desire is to secure a full economic, public and social life for disabled people in accordance with their own wishes and desired lifestyles. This organization is very beneficial and is starting to grain notice within the disabled community. (French&Swain, 2001:747)
The power relations in the health care profession are complex since doctors treat the impaired as passive patients and try to influence their lives outside the hospital, since there are ideologies that the impaired cannot take care of themselves. The health care system needs to get rid of this institutional discrimination and treat the disabled as regular patients rather then objects whom live tragic lives and need someone to run their lives for them.

Tracy Hamalainen

When Billy broke his head and other thoughts

When Billy Broke His Head Â… And Other Tales of Wonder. -1994 - video recording
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0842/is_n3_v20/ai_16025459 When Billy Golfus, an award-winning radio journalist was brain damaged as a result of a motor scooter accident 10 years ago, he became one of the 43 million Americans with disabilities--this country's largest and most invisible minority. He struggled with his own rehabilitation and came home from the hospital, only to discover that physical rehabilitation was only the first battle he'd have to fight. In America, disability is not just a medical fact, it is also a political reality. In this irreverent, first-person road movie, Golfus, a sort of underground Charles Kuralt, goes on the road to meet people with disabilities around the country and witness firsthand the strength and anger that is forging a new civil rights movement. This video blends humor with politics and individual experience with a chorus of voices to explore what it is really like to live with a disability in America--where pervasive discrimination and bureaucratic "helping" systems too often keep people with disabilities trapped in a labyrinth of government rules and legislated poverty. As Billy says, "This ain't exactly your inspirational cripple story." It's a documentary with an attitude, which should entertain, enlighten, and might even enrage it's viewers. cast for 'When Billy Broke His Head... And Other Tales of Wonder'

Billy Golfus - Host

production credits

Billy Golfus - Screenwriter, Producer, Cinematographer, Director
Slawomir Grunberg - Cinematographer
David E. Simpson - Producer, Cinematographer, Editor, Director

awards

Freedom of Expression Award (win) - - 1994 Sundance Film Festival
Freedom of Expression Award (win) - David E. Simpson - 1994 Sundance Film Festival

*******$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$********************

Okay, so if you haven't already realized, this post is about a film that was screened in our disability studies class.

The row of $$$ and *** is to mean that this is an extra special occasion and is worthy or our meritorious praise.

It is also a call to action and a call to arms, to change. Change the perceptions we hold about disabled people that invariably, but directly causes them so much harm.

In addition to the preamble review at the top of the post, I figured I would spend a minute sharing my own notes taken from the film.

Firstly; this film is from 1994 - but it has a freshness and vibrance that is unmatched in much of documentary film making. Hmm there must be something there, something of importance in relation to the Human spirit, the human condition, humanity...

This film is not the story of a disabled man
(with an impairment that is virtually invisible, meaning it is not readily apparent simply from looking at him, since he has brain damage)
in the sense that the usual story of disabled people is either THE TRAGIC BUT BRAVE VICTIM or the CUTE AND INSPIRATIONAL. Think - rick hansen,
to Harry Earles (the short guy below) in Tod Browning's ~ FREAKS


"Tod Browning dares to answer the question: Can a full grown woman truly love a MIDGET ?"So why this digression to media images, well, i guess it's because I am a firm believer in the church of the mass media, and I also belive that every mind numbing piece of mass media created has 'an' effect on the built and mental environments we traverse daily.

Back to the film:

"as long as you don't have a job, they do." Spoken by a woman with a disability in relation to the 'Bureaucratick' folks in control of her life.

The overwhelming sentiment is anger, partly directed at the American Gov't - because as citizens of that country, they are denied services that would enable them to be self sufficient

- in effect - when a person asks for assistance - first they are seen as a person who is asking for preferential treatment - no person should be asking for more - they should be happy with that which has been given to them - right? - WRoNG

- The box doesn't allow everyone to fit inside in a nice and cozy way - Thus when a person asks - if they are not flat out denied - they often lose that which they had already been granted - i.e., if you were being given anallotmentt each month - and you felt that you could help to improve your personal situation by getting a job for x hours and x pay per week - the system of 'social assistance - would likely decide that you were no longer in need of any social assistance

- even if the pay you made from the job was not enough to cover your expenses - then the choice becomes - well - do i keep the job and live in a poverty worse than before or do i go back to the 'assistance' I was on? - Meaning that when the Gov thinks that your life in poverty is getting too cushy, they slap you with a 'spindown'

- what the fuzz is a spin down - how American is that - but it probably happens in Canada just as often - a spend-down is where you are slapped with hefty tax for brining in extra money - money that is seen as surplus and in addition to the X$s you have been allotted by the assistance' program.

The fact of the matter is that, people are faced with disincentives to work and improve their own personal situation, (this is where the whole - "they are last argument comes in") there is no middle road - no grey area for pencil pushers - for the pencil pusher has no 'real' authority - this action must be made in other ways -

For example: the disability rights movement in the US is largely spearheaded - or that's the way it is shown in the movie - to be a major player in disability rights activism - they are called

A.D.A.P.T. their current agenda = "There's no place like home; and we mean real homes, not nursing homes. We are fighting so people with disabilities can live in the community with real supports instead of being locked away in nursing homes and other institutions."

Their past agenda was all about transportation - The figures from the film went a little like this - Denver, CO - There was a larger push and large demonstration of civil disobedience by disabled people in Denver than there was in Chicago - The demonstration ended up shutting down an entire govt building for a day - in Chicago, no demonstration of like kind happened -
Today (1993) - ALL buses in Denver are accessible by wheelchair's - In Chicago - 600/3200 buses are wheelchair accessible -

The moral of the story was - the more civil disobedience the more results.

To return to the Current mandate of ADAPT - here are some #'s reflecting a familiar schema of power - money and greed -

The nursing home industry (yes industry, of warehousing people in places that may even 'look nice') is a 6 Billion$/year (1994) industry.

The gov of America chips in 3.8 Bil/year

- hell yeah lets take care of these people,Ii know, we'll stick in a place with lots of these 'useless' people and they can all sit there and watch the TV and be useless together - yeah George that sounds like a great idea - hell why don't we all move in there - uh - no - wait -I don't want to live in a nursing home - oh wait - how many people actually choose to go there - or want to - or are asked - is there a choice -???

It costs roughly $45,000/ year to have a person live in a NH? (Not sure where the funding is all coming from, or percentages)?

There are over 2 million Nursing homes in the US.

So lets compare - The cost it would be to allow someone to stay home, in their own environment - in their own surroundings - on their own schedules - with their own choices -- privacy - dignity - sanity - perhaps with assistance from care workers - hmm - safety - a home I'm comfortable in and feel safe in and get to live my life the way I want to live = priceless and a lot less than the cost of a NH.




Disabled people are the largest minority in the U.S.

The real problems are not the buses - the doors - the stairs - the high shelves - the visual culture - no - the problem is the attitudes - the prevailing attitude that sees disability as a worse fate than death.





To Read some of Billy Golfus' writings: go here...http://www.mouthmag.com/do_goodertrouble.htm



Sorry for the literary vomit - I am in the middle of a very busy time.


A

Not Believing

Alright, I have been trying to figure out how to post a video to this thing but I can't seem to figure it out.

My dad has been talking alot to me about a commercial that he has seen on T.V. for the Toronto Rehab Institue (TRI) and he said it was great! So I went to there website to see if I could find it and once I saw it I thought I would post it on here.

mms://rehabmedia.torontorehab.on.ca/TV-colby.wmv

This is the link for the video but I don't know if it will really work so I will give another way to get to it.

http://www.torontorehab.com/about/paffairs.htm
and than click on TELEVISION in the middle of the page

Hopefully you can find it and if anyone can figure out how to post it even better!!!!!

Disability and conceptions of adulthood

Priestley, Mark. (No Date). Chapter 5, Disability : A Life Course Approach. Pg. 116-142

Goble, Colin. (No Date). Dependence, Independence and Normality. Sociology of Disability Reading Package No. 19.


Disability and Conceptions of Adulthood


Up to this point in the readings, we have become very familiar with the concept of disability and its meaning. Both articles that will be reviewed in this paper will explore further into the social construction of disability to view the concept of adulthood and how it affects disabled people from achieving adult roles.
Priestley outlines the 3 main generational categories: youth, adulthood and old age. Adulthood is defined as gaining independence and the achievement of adult roles such as employment. Priestley makes an important point by stating that disabled people are regarded as “childlike” because dependency is linked to the generational categories of children or old age, and therefore do not permit people with disabilities to obtain adult status. Goble adds to this by reviewing the professional conception of independence. Although disabled people are deemed dependent, Goble points to the fact that professionals feel that if a disabled person does not measure up to normal standards, then a plan is created to return these people back to as normal as possible in order to help them gain independence, and therefore, adult status.
Although both of these articles examine the concept of independence and adulthood, both articles consider different topics on the issue. Goble discusses a basic overview of the subject, beginning with an important summary of the history of the creation of disability and independence. He also outlines very important arguments based on the professional’s and of the disabled person’s view of the conception of independence. The author finishes up with an extremely important element of the struggle for independence by people with intellectual disabilities. Priestley’s article only briefly talks about this important issue, however, Goble’s article does an excellent job in outlining the issues that people with intellectual disabilities have in order to get the same respect that other disabilities receive, let alone the respect that “normal” people have. He also challenges societies view of independence, and outlines ways in which we would be able to include those who are not able to be completely independent be respected and be able to receive adult roles and statuses.
Priestley, on the other hand, examines the concept of independence in a different light by looking at different roles associated with adulthood that limit disabled peoples access into gaining adult roles. First, he outlines the importance of employment for gaining independence, and therefore, adult status. Secondly, Priestley examines the important issue of disabled people becoming parents, and the legal issues that society has with it. Priestley also explores the issues people with intellectual disabilities face when trying to assert that they are competent and capable enough to deal with the topics that come up in parenthood. Priestley makes an excellent example, much the same as Goble’s view of aiding people in adult roles, by talking about supportive parenting. This view holds that parental competence “is not simply a fixed attribute of individuals” but something that is distributed between “people in families and social networks”(Priestley, 130). This relates to Goble’s view in that society’s view of how parenting a child should be and recognize that, since we all receive help parenting, that we should support people with disabilities in their parenting roles. If we do not, Priestley adds, parents with disabilities will continue to try and demonstrate their “potential as good enough mothers” for fear that if they ask for help that they will be seen as unfit parents and have their children taken away. This leads to parents not being able to fully support themselves and their children and, consequently, this leads to neglect on themselves or their children. This can be avoided in most cases with some parental support, and advocacy in order to defend the fact that asking for help does not make them an unfit parent.
These articles are both useful to the understanding of the subject of disability because they examine another issue on the topic of the social construction of disability. We have learned different ways in which disabled people have been discriminated against in the physical world, however, these articles examine ways in which they are discriminated against in an entity, whether it be in relation to parenthood, but also a disabled person’s right to claim generational roles. Society needs to step back and rethink what we think as “normal” ways of doing things, such as working or parenting, and see that not only are their ways right, but for the most part, so are the ways that disabled people do them. They may do something a different way than normal, but this does not mean that it is wrong. Society needs to realize that it would be more helpful if they were to nurture these differences than to knock them down, and then perhaps disabled people would be able to have the same equality as “normal” people.

Comment Paper -- Disability and Conceptions of Adulthood

Disability and Conceptions of Adulthood
Goble, Colin (2004). Dependence, Independence and Normality, pp 41-46 in John Swain, Sally French,
Colin Barnes and Carol Tjomas (eds.). Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments, 2nd Edition (London: Sage).
Priestly, Mark (2003). Disability: A Life Course Approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Ch 5 pp. 116-142

What defines an independent person? At first, a hegemonic conception of the term may include doing what a person wants, when a person wants, and usually by themselves, or without help from another person. However, in our society, where everyone is actually interdependent, is that really what independence consists of? Independence can be defined in a number of ways; both Goble and Priestly contrast a professional - mainstream view with a disabled person’s conception of what it may be.
Goble first outlines what he calls a professional conception of independence. This is a definition that is based completely on the medical model of disability: if your body is not fully functional, and you are not able to care for yourself, you are not independent. “The assumption is that the problem lies within the individual, and the response is technical intervention by skilled ‘expert’ professionals to help the person overcome it and return to an approximation of ‘normality’,” (Goble, 2004), with ‘normality’ as having a fully functioning body for which you are capable of caring for yourself. However, from this definition, no person in society can be considered truly independent, as everyone relies on other people in their social networks for something; for instance, a significant other or other family members and friends provide emotional or financial support when it is needed. We also rely on the professionals, on people who work in stores, our coworkers, and the list continues. Our society, contrary to hegemonic beliefs, is interdependent in that we are always in need of social networks. Complete independence is not possible with the medical model definition then.
Goble gives a definition of independence from a disabled person’s perspective as well: “From this perspective then, independence is about rights, access and control rather than functional capacity,” (Goble, 2004). This definition makes more sense in reference to our society as it allows for interdependence at the same time as independence. Goble reiterates that the autonomy and privacy of the individual are key for independence; without the right to control your own financial situation or healthcare treatments, what can you control? The lack of this control would leave a person feeling very dependent and unworthy of status in society, which is part of the oppression disabled people are subjected to more often than not.
As Goble asserts his definitions of independence, Priestly applies them to adulthood as a social status. He makes the argument that adult social status comes with both rights and responsibilities that both disabled persons and those considered older can be excluded from, because of their perceived incompetence. However, who decides who is competent? This reiterates the concept of professional control in society. In this section, Priestly explains the generational system as having three parts: childhood, where people are dependent on their parents, adulthood, where independence is finally found, and old age, where people are dependent on their care-givers once again. He also explains that disabled people have a difficult time fitting into these generational categories when the definition being followed is the hegemonic medical model. People with impairments are seen as dependent, and so never reach the adulthood stage, but get thrown into the old age stage: “dependency and impairment are regarded as ‘childlike’ states… exclusion maintains the dependency of children and older people, and reproduces their generational marginality from adulthood,”(Priestly, 2003). Applying this to disabled people is not a difficult task: when rights and control are denied, exclusion ensures the dependency of disabled people, and removes their adult status.
Priestly reiterates Goble’s argument of our society not actually being independent with a quote from Oliver: “in reality, of course, no one in a modern industrial society is completely independent: we live in a state of mutual interdependence,” (1989, in Priestly, 2003). He also explains that without interdependency, independence will not be understood: “when the human condition is viewed as one of interdependency and vulnerability, this leads to an understanding of independence and ‘partnership’.”(Reindal, 1999, in Priestly, 2003).
In his second section, Priestly outlines parenting as an example of independence. I thought that this section went along with the documentary “The Sterilization of Leilani Muir”. Because of perceived incompetence instead of the realization that all that is needed is a little bit of extra support, sterilization occurs, along with a long list of children being placed into alternate homes. I was surprised at the number of children being removed from their families because of a learning disability. Once again, who is entitled to decide a person’s competency?
“The ability to work is the primary criterion that states use to define who is disabled” (Priestly, 2003). The last section of Priestly’s article outlines what work means to independence. Work is a status symbol for the status of adulthood: once a person hits a certain age, they are old enough to have the responsibility of work. Disabled people, however, are often excluded from this status and responsibility because of physical challenges. He argues that changes in the structures of adult labour markets are the cause of the social category of disability in capitalist societies. To explain, those who are disabled are deemed unfit to work, and are not usually employed. However, when there are circumstances that warrant it, such as war, or an economic boom where more workers are needed, those same disabled people will be given a job. This makes disability elastic, and promotes the exclusion of these people from the work force, removing, again, the social status of adulthood.
The similarities in the two arguments involve the argument for moving away from the traditional medical model definition of physical capabilities as independence and towards a definition that focuses on rights, access and control. Priestly expands on Goble’s definitions with extra examples, however, Goble seems to take into account the attempt for professionals in society to work in alliance with the disabled, where Priestly seems to only state the negative.
In conclusion, the hegemonic definition of independence needs to change before the rights, access and control of disabled people and those who are aged will be acknowledged. Our society needs to realize that, along with independence, we should be valuing interdependence, because it is such a large part of our lives.

Disability, Bioethics and Human Rights

Asch, Adrienne (2001). Disability, Bioethics and Human Rights, Ch 11 (pp 297-326) in Handbook of Disability Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Priestley, Mark (2003). Disability: A Life Course Approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press

The two articles that I read for this week deal with the issues of bioethics, human rights and disability. Each of the articles takes quite a different stance on this issue and therefore, coupled together, give the reader a very broad understanding of the issues. The first article written by Adrienne Asch takes a more medical model stance towards the right to life of disabled people while the second article takes a much more social model approach. Both articles point out the devaluing of disabled people within society but they differ on their view as to what causes this devaluing. Although they do differ in so many ways, I believe, in the end, they come to the same solution, that is, to have the disability rights workers and the bioethical workers come together to best serve all members of society.
While reading Adrienne Asch’s article I get the sense that she is of the opinion that the bioethical community has a better grasp of the issues at hand than do those involved in disability studies. Although she does present both sides of the argument I feel she is leaning towards the bioethical side of the debate. In this article, life is seen as a commodity that has a concrete value. Impairments are seen as a problem in society. One with a disability cannot possibly have the same quality of life as someone who is impairment free. Much like the social model, it is argued that if one has a disability she/he will experience isolation, poverty and social stigma but what is different is that this model sees the problem as rooted in the individual with the disability. Disability is seen as a personal problem. Bioethics argues for things such as prenatal testing, termination of pregnancy if impairment is detected and even withholding treatments from infants with severe impairments. The argument in all of these issues is that a person with impairments could never experience good quality of life. Because these bioethics professionals are so strong in their view, it is evident that they push these views on the parents of impaired fetuses and children. Both articles agree that the idea behind prenatal testing is not informed choice but rather to screen for anomalies and if a problem exists terminate the pregnancy. New parents are not given both options; they are not offered literature from the social model of disability and are not met by people in society who are living great lives with their disabilities. Another issue that is raised in this article is that of physician-assisted suicide and who exactly should be involved in the decision-making process. It is the medical model view that if anyone should be involved it should not be the disabled person him/herself. Although the disabled person may have good cognitive functioning and may even have a very strong opinion as to what happens to her/him, he/she is often ignored and pushed aside. This article doesn’t condone this behaviour but I also don’t see the bioethics community changing its practices anytime soon. This article also doesn’t realize why these people often feel like ending their lives. Once again they see it as a personal problem rather than seeing the pressures society puts on them.
The second article, written by Mark Priestley, presents the social model view of disability with relation to the issues of bioethics and human rights. Many of the arguments from the first article are refuted and presented in a new light within this article. With relation to the issue of termination of pregnancy when impairment is detected, Priestley raises the issue of the parents who choose to have their child knowing full well about the disability. In our society, where disability is devalued so much, these parents will not only do not get the support and attention they need but, more so, they will have to live in a state of constant fear that they may be persecuted for choosing to bring a disabled life into this world. This article sees a need to remove the disabling barriers on our society instead of simply removing the disabled people as the other article suggests. Disability is not seen as an inherent problem but rather is seen as an issue that developed alongside the rise of industrial capitalism. When the economic structure of society changed so did the values system. Physical, mental and psychological differences went from being valued to being de-valued. Where bioethics would see this as inevitable, the social model sees this as something that can and needs to be changed again. This article also points out other issues such as the fact that both impaired infants and impaired adults are refused treatment for medical issues that have no relation to their impairment on the basis that they will not benefit from it as much as someone without disability would. Also, the fact that a fetus with impairment is not given the same human rights to life as a fetus without impairment is brought up. I would be very interested to see what the bioethical community has to say about these issues. As I mentioned before, although these articles do differ in their approach to disability and impairment, I believe that their solution to the problems are quite similar, that is, to have both communities come together and work towards the betterment of the lives of those with disabilities. Disability needs to become something that is cherished nt shameful, resented or hidden.

Comment Paper #1 By CRYSTAL ANDERSON

French, S. Swain, J. The Relationship between Disabled People and Health and Welfare Professionals pp.734-751

What does it mean for a disabled person to be “independent?” As I began to read this article it became clear as to what that all means. Each person desires to be independent, to be able to choose for him or her self and to be in control of their lives. I have come to realize that person with disability also want this, and it is not in terms of physical capability but, rather it is something of control. Maintaining independence for an individual who does have limitations or a disability can be such a challenging task that no one would be able to understand. In the reading by Sally French and John Swain, they had done some research on some of the experiences of persons with disability in relations to social structures and power relations with professionals. Disabled people have been placed in institutions for so long and have been treated as ones who should be left alone; the kind of “not so normal” people. Then there are the doctors who seem to not care much about the individual and decide to diagnose the individual instead of trying to pay some attention to the actual need. An example of this, negative discrimination and would be described as someone who looks at what is physically wrong rather then the entire body of the person, who happens to have a disability. In this case, health professionals keep people with disabilities oppressed, either consciously or subconsciously. Allan Dudley, whose disability is being deaf, is an example from the article of an individual had been rejected from ten universities and then he finally was accepted into a university he got his degree in Social Work. Once he got his degree it was hard for him to find a job, because he either had to work with people the same disability as himself or there were no jobs out there for him (744). This is a clear example of how society has been discriminating against people with disabilities.

There was a movement that took place to eradicate people’s ideologies, attitudes and misconceptions of people with disabilities. People with disability were people who no one wanted to talk to or be around and therefore just stuck them into institutions. Therefore, people with disabilities came together to change these issues and to help show non-disabled people (as well as disabled people) that they too have rights and values that should be respected and be treated as equal individuals. They fought for the right to be independent if they chose, to live a life that they chose and to take control and power over their own lives. Therefore, this meant that major barriers needed to be changed. For instance, inclusion into the community instead of exclusion, health care workers as well as other professionals take a more sensitive and compassionate approach in dealing with persons with disabilities as they would with any other individual. There was a centre that was organized called the Center for Integrated Living which focused on Independent living.

I believe that each person has the right to choose what he or she desires and the role of the professionals should not be to oppress or negatively discriminate but, rather support them in their efforts to be independent. As quoted in the article “Disabled people have the right to determine their own lives in every aspect…” (748).The only way there will be change in the professional field is when we challenge to change the professional structures, policies and ideologies. Now that this is slowly being chipped away, people with disabilities are starting to have control and power over their own lives, rather then the professionals deciding for them, and begin to live independent lives.