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.

Comment Paper Week 8, Independent Living

October 30, 2007

French, S. and Swain, J. (2000). “The Relationships between Disabled People and Health and Welfare Professionals”. Handbook of Disability Studies by Albrecht, G. L. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

The article, "The Relationships between Disabled People and Health and Welfare Professionals", concerns itself with the issue of independent living and examines the relationship development between disabled people and professionals, as stated in the title. Power structures and relations within the medical and social professions, and the production of disability through institutional discrimination are also addressed.

Discussion begins with the awareness that the emergence and redefinition of disability as a human and civil rights issue has underpinned fundamental challenges to professional ideologies and models (French & Swain, 2000). Of most importance are the establishment of centers for independent living and the provision of services for disabled people by disabled people (French & Swain, 2000). Disability, according to French and Swain, is defined as a form of oppression and institutionalized discrimination. Thompson suggests that, “an understanding of the workings of power is an essential part of challenging inequality, discrimination and oppression” (French & Swain, 2000).

Three associated elements of professional power have been identified. The power of individual professionals to access disabled people, define their problems and needs, specify solutions and evaluate their effectiveness is one such element. McKnight states, “Therefore, if the client is to have the benefit of the professional remedy, he must also understand that the professional not only knows what he needs but also how the need is to be met“ (French & Swain, 2000). This is not always the case as has been discussed in previous comment papers. Every disabled individual’s situation is unique. This is an example of professional dominance where medical observations are viewed as objective, whereas the patient’s perceptions are subjective (Coates and King, 1982).

Secondly, power involves professionals as powerful groups within society, in a pursuit of self-interest, with the mystification, defining, and control of expertise (French & Swain, 2000). As Hugman (1991) states, this might serve as “basis for defining the boundaries of the profession with other professions, and it provides the foundations for power exercised by the professionals in relation to the users of their services”.

Thirdly, the aspect of professional power is seen in the agents or representatives of the economic and political elite. Of importance to professional-disabled people relations is the maintenance of the status quo by pathologizing and individualizing problems that have been socially and economically created (French & Swain, 2000). Segregation and institutionalization create dependency of disabled people and facilitate the development of the medical profession to medicalize areas of disabled people’s lives that had little to do with medicine. Although the medicalization of disability has had some positive effects, it has also played a crucial role in the maintenance and justification of the individual tragedy model of disability and the enforced dependency of disabled people. In contrast, the implications of the social model are to promote the collective struggle for social change. This is the aim of the disabled people’s movement. As a result of discrimination, however, they have been rendered relatively powerless.

A large number of British Council of Organizations of Disabled People (BCODP) organizations comprise coalitions of disabled people and centers for integrated and independent living, CILs. The concept of integrated living evolved from the social model and provides a challenge to the dominance of professionals in relation to disabled people. The argument is that people that are disabled by societies terms, physical, intellectual, sensory, have the right to assert control over their lives (French & Swain, 2000).

In another case, The Derbyshire Centre for Integrated Living attempts to remove barriers and provide basic needs of information, technical aids, transport, counseling, housing, personal assistance and access. Every aspect of their work is geared towards the fulfillment of disabled people on their own terms and in viewing disabled people as active, capable citizens who are restricted not by impairment but by a disabling society (French & Swain, 2000). As stated by French, “Disabled people define independence, not in physical terms, but in terms of control”. They are still independent of thought and action, enabling them to take control of their lives.

Despite the potential for a change in the relationship between professionals and disabled people, there is little evidence of any shift in power. It can be argued that only the rise of the disabled people’s movement, along with the relinquishing of health and welfare professional’s power will rectify the problem as professionals and disabled people become allies.

This form of writing gains strength through the disability activist movement. The activists arguing societal issues draw in supporting arguments, similar opinions, from other activists who have written similar literature. This helps to strengthen the case, forming a basis or proof that the ideas are representative of the disabled population as a whole. Two contrasting case studies were offered to support the relationships between disabled people and health and welfare professionals. This put matters of discrimination and attempts to rectify the problem, by regaining a sense of independence through choice of care for disabled people, into perspective.

Comment paper #3

Comment Paper #3

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

Colin Goble (2004). Dependence, Independence and Normality from John Swain, Sally French, Colin Barnes and Carol Thomas (eds.). Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments, 2nd
Edition. London: Sage.

Robert D. Wilton (2006). Working at the Margins: Disabled People and the Growth of Precarious Employment from Pothier, Dianne and Richard (eds.). Critical Disability Theory:
Essays in Philosophy, Politics, Policy, and Law. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Throughout the world, individuals need employment that is well paid to be able to
survive and meet the needs in life. This does not mean that each individual is able to achieve
well paid employment, for example disabled individuals have difficulties if not receiving a job
then having a job that does not meet the needs of living. Within the book by Mark Priestley it
discusses how within today’s society there is an aim in helping disabled individuals receive jobs
and as well how it is difficult for them. Although within the book it talks about ways to help
disabled individuals with employment it supports the other two articles by Colin Goble and
Robert D. Wilton because it explains how employment is a negative issue for disabled people.
Throughout this paper, I will be discussing ways in which the book and the two articles support
each other.

Within the book by Mark Priestley, it explains how there has been a goal in helping disabled individuals in achieving a well paid job. “Such responses have emphasized increased
flexibility responding to disabled people’s employment needs, and the economic benefits of bringing disabled people into paid work” (Priestley 136). Not only does it state that there is a
aim in helping disabled individuals but as well how there is still some difficulty within employment opportunities. To support this statement, within the book it states: “ 80 percent in some countries, remain unemployed due to the disabling attitudes of employers, unequal access to education and training, an absence of appropriate support, and disabling barriers in the workplace” (Priestley 133). Not only does it show within this book how disabled individuals have had obscurities within the workforce but also with the article by Colin Goble.

Within the article, Dependence, Independence and Normality by Colin Goble it focuses on how professionals are trying to help disabled individuals with employment and how it affects them negatively. By having disabled individuals isolated from others by having special programs for them so they are able to achieve employment brings upon an unenthusiastic feeling. “In these isolated, and often closed and authoritarian worlds, inmates were socialized into a view of themselves as sick, helpless, inferior and in need of help and care to survive. Thus the circle was closed, and many disabled people themselves completed the perception of disability as a ‘tragic’ problem, internal to the affected individual, in their internalization of that view” (Goble 41). This shows how disabled individuals feel as if they are not able to achieve employment without the help of professionals and how it can affect them negatively.

Within the article, Working at the Margins: Disabled People and the Growth of Precarious Employment by Robert D. Wilton it displays how disabled individuals have a disadvantage when trying to achieve employment within the workforce. “People with disabilities are disproportionately concentrated in poorly paid positions, less likely to occupy visible positions involving contact with the customers, less likely to be promoted, and paid less than non-disabled workers” (Wilton 129). Within the article it states how disabled individuals are offered low wages, the workforce can be inaccessible and the quality of training is poor. There are a few examples how individuals have had difficulties throughout their life as being disabled and entering the workforce. For example, “Over a period of ten years, Gordon experienced downward mobility, working jobs that paid less, offered fewer benefits, and over which he had less control” (Wilton 140). This article clearly shows how disabled individuals are represented negatively within the workforce.

The readings support one another by discussing how disabled individuals are negatively
disadvantaged within the workforce. Within the book and articles it stated how disabled individuals who receive employment are offered the negative ends of jobs such as, low paid jobs,
less benefits, and much more. As well within the book it stated that within society a change is
trying to occur by giving disabled individuals equal opportunities but there are still negative affects on disabled individuals.

Week 6 Readings Comment

Priestly, Mark (2003). Disability: A Life Course Approach. (Chap. 4) Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Barron, Karin (1997). Disability & Society. Vol.12, No.2. (Pg 223-239) Upsala, Sweden: Journals Oxford Ltd.
The articles by Priestly and Barron help to put into perspective the disabling culture in which we live. Both of these articles bring attention to the concept of normality and the emphasis on individual autonomy as well as the body as a powerful symbol of identity, both of these concepts are viewed as elements of oppression for those living with impairments. Also, the widespread notion that those living with impairments are asexual beings is also discussed in both of these articles.
In the article "Disability and Youth" Priestly discusses how youth identities are defined in terms of what is referred to as leisure consumption and expressions of style. Those youth who live with impairments face significant barriers in terms of the lack of financial resources and also in terms of access. " the normalization of youthful bodily ideals, in terms of functional and sexual desirability, contributes directly to the construction of disability".(95) Individuals living with impairments are then disabled by the society in which they live. When an individual fails, for lack of a better word, to achieve the status of being normal they are pushed to the margins of society regardless of whether they are capable of making valuable contributions to society or not. This article also discusses certain myths that exist about individuals living with impairments, particularly the myth that those who have impairments are asexual. I would just like to mention briefly that I believe this notion to be absurd. With such a myth in place, individuals with impairments are denied sexual desires and devalued in terms of being a potential sexual partner. Also, this myth only helps to further the belief by many persons that individuals with impairments should not be able to have children of their own. Those who have impairments are also discriminated against when it comes to the transition to adulthood. " the institutional management of training for young disabled people has focussed on less marketable and lower status ‘qualifications’, primarily concerned with the acquisition of ‘life skills’(108). Again we are brought to this concept of normality. It is assumed that if one does not possess specific ‘life skills’ also referred to as activities of daily living, then one will be unable to live a ‘normal’ life. Here the concept of quality of life is determined by the quantity of activities and individual can perform, and how ‘normal’ one can perform these activities. Through such a narrow lense, quality of life is also determined by the degree of individual autonomy. Here the importance of interdependence is ignored and replaced with a strict emphasis on independence.
In Barron article entitled " the Bumpy Road to Womanhood" this emphasis on living an independent life in order to live a high quality life is also recognized. The myth of those with impairments living a life absent of sexual desire is also drawn upon and the concept of gender roles is emphasized. Barron mentions that " Research on disability has traditionally neglected the impact of gender roles" (224). By denying the impact of gender roles, individuals with impairments are viewed strictly as disabled rather than male or female. This starts a chain reaction which results in the perception of disabled people as asexual, denying the fact that individuals with impairments experience sexual desires just as those without impairments. Barron also mentions that woman with impairments have to deal with what I will refer to as a double stereotype.
" Dependence, passivity and non-assertive behaviour traditionally are viewed as appropriate and desirable behaviours for women, but their effects are even more detrimental for disabled women because they are also stereotypes of persons with disabilities" (227)
Not being recognized as a member of a particular sex, in this case a women, denies and generalizes the experiences of women living with impairments. These women have to strive to achieve their status both as ‘normal’ members of society and as women. This can be especially difficult when faced with society’s opinion of what constitutes beauty. Most people view beauty as a feature of being a woman, something they should strive for. " Having a physical impairment may mean having to come to terms with a body that departs from cultural norms of acceptability and attractiveness".(229) Baron notes that the emphasis on women having to be beautiful suggests that those women who live with impairments possess bodies that are not ‘up to scratch’. Rather than being granted the status of being a female at birth and growing into a woman, as is the case with women without impairments, those with impairments have to qualify for their status as women. Baron indicates various ways in which they do this such as being accepted by a ‘normal’ man as a sexual partner or becoming a wife and mother. However there are also obstacles to achieving these aspirations for women with impairments.
By placing any kind of importance on the concept of normality, we automatically generalize the experiences of individuals in society, especially those with impairments. When society constructs these concepts of what it is to live a ‘normal’ life, and what it means to look like a ‘normal’ person we are denying the heterogeneity of the population and the diversity of human experience. As mentioned in class the body cannot be separated into bits and pieces, we are all of one piece and together we make up the puzzle that is the society in which we live. By affirming the notions that oppress individuals with impairments we are essentially saying that these individuals, as pieces, are broken and cannot fit into the puzzle that is society. This type of thinking rationalizes ableist attitudes and discriminates against individuals with impairments which, in turn, makes them disabled.

Disabled Youth

Barron, Karin (1997). “The Bumpy Road to Womanhood.” Disability & Society 12 (2): 223-239

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

Mark Priestley’s chapter 4 explores disability and youth. Mark Priestley looks at the theoretical perspectives in youth studies, specifically the structural and cultural explanations (88). In a teenager’s life, peer groups are a necessity, however those young adults that have disabilities may find physical and social barriers (91).

Karin Barron’s article, The Bumpy Road to Womanhood, explores young women who have a physical disability between the ages of 17-22. It explains how gender roles, striving for autonomy, obstacles to womanhood, and the dream of womanhood all affect the mental capability of the young adult (224-237).

Both articles had many similarities including the topic of normalcy. On page 95 of Mark Priestley’s chapter it states, “The normalization of youthful bodily ideals in terms of functional and sexual desirability, contributes directly to the construction of disability” (95). Young adults these days grow up in a social world that is characterized by how one person is perceived by the public eye. It is rather unfortunate that this has to happen, yet those young individuals that do have a disability may not fit into this social world and not be accepted by their surrounding peers. On page 231 of Karin Barron’s article, it states, “The ideal of normality is thus something the interviewees are subjected to. It is considered ‘normal’ and thus of value being in the company of non-disabled peers” (231). Essentially, young adults are very critical of their appearance and succumb to peer pressure. If a person was to have a noticeable disability, it would be extremely tough for other peers to accept this. Unfortunately, not all young adults have an open mind, nor do they want to understand. I personally believe that this starts to phase out when the young adult moves into post secondary education. The two articles look at two different points of normalcy. Priestley’s chapter looks at normalization in respect to bodily appearance while Barron’s article looks at normalization in respect to having a relationship. I believe that these two factors go hand in hand. If the young disabled adult does not have a “normal” appearance than it will be difficult for that individual to find a relationship with other peers.

Another similarity between the two articles was the topic of idealization. In Chapter 4, Priestley states that it is important to look at the “detail at the management of youth transitions” (106). In Barron’s article it describes the many transitions that a young woman goes through. Barron states that the media plays a big role on the idealization of people who have a disability. She states, on page 231 that the media portrays a young wheelchair bound woman as someone who has physical disability. The media does not support the fact that this young woman has the same mental and possibly physical status as an able bodied person. Unfortunately this means that society then views this individual as frail. People fail to realize that some people who have a disability still maintain active lives within the community. Many disabled people have careers and function well within society. Another words, they are just like anyone else.

The readings have a contradicting topic on sexuality. Mark Priestley states this on page 97, “Not only have disabled people been constructed as less attractive or desirable, their potential for expressions of sexuality has been both denied and heavily regulated” (97). Karin Barron states that the interviewees did say that they were asked questions about their identity as asexual (228). Through the interview, women brought up that even though they have a disability they were sexual human beings. I wonder if Priestley was uninformed about this topic. I am sure that there are some individuals who can not bear the idea of sexual activity, however, there are many young females that recognize that sexual desire and acquire it. Again, I believe that this all has something to do with the social circle that the individual has grown up in. If peers of a disabled person are willing to adjust and accept the disabled person for who they are, then that individual will have no problem fitting in. I believe that we as a society need to grow up a little, and try to understand the different ways that an individual can live.

What is the difference between a person with a disability and a person without? Some would say a whole lot. A person’s disabilities even if visible shouldn’t be what they are. A person with a disability is an individual with thoughts and feelings and should be treated as such.

Relationships

Fisher, Bernice & Roberta Galler (1988). Friendship and Fairness: How Disability Affects Friendship Between Women, pp 172-194 in Michelle Fine and Adrienne Asch (eds.). Women With Disabilities: Essays in Psychology, Culture, and Politics (Philadephia: Temple University Press).

Rowlands, Allison (2001). Breaking My Head in the Prime of My Life: Acquired Disability in Young Adulthood, pp. 179-191 in Mark Priestley, Disability and the Life Course (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).

Shakespeare, Tom (1996). Power and Prejudice: Issues of Gender, Sexuality and Disability, pp 191-214 in Len Barton (ed.). Disability & Society: Emerging Issues and Insights (London; Longman).

The authors in this week’s comment paper address relationships from a disabled person’s perspective. The three articles relate to each other because they each discuss what friendships mean to a disabled person, and the goals and dreams of the disabled people they interviewed. These articles are similar because they each acquired information from disabled individuals. The authors addressed the issue of friendship from an individual’s perspective. These articles also contradict themselves when it came to the individuals of different gender that were interviewed, and the extent to which the authors talked about friendship. The first article by Fisher and Galler mainly described friendship among disabled and non-disabled women and the issues they face. It talks about how “caring, empathy, and common interests” bring these women together” and how “political dimensions, such as: opportunity, reciprocity, and responsibility” affects their friendships (Fisher and Galler 1988, p. 173-175). The second article by Rowlands talked about the before and after experiences of a young male named Peter that has a brain injury due to a vehicle accident at a young age. The last article by Shakespeare, talks about the experiences of disabled people in gender and sexuality. It talks about various assumptions society has about disabled people and the limitations those assumptions led to. The assumptions are such as: the stereotypical image we have of a disabled person “a young male that is white and in a wheelchair” (Shakespeare 1996, p. 195). Another assumption as argued by Shakespeare about our society, is that disabled people cannot experience love or physical sexual activities.

To really understand the reasons behind the stereotypes and negative attitude disabled people receive in our society, we have to think of the assumptions created by the society. Shakespeare highlighted a really important issue among disabled people. He argued that “there is an assumption in our society that disabled people especially those who have high physical dependency or who cannot communicate, are less than human” (Shakespeare, 1996, p. 207). Meaning it is the social definition that is shaping what we classify as disability and how we view it. It is also the social definition that causes issues among friendship, gender, intimacy, and sexuality to arise among disabled people. The social definition also affects disabled people’s friendship by making them hide their experiences or expressions. As argued by Fisher and Galler, “visible disability often causes the non-disabled to guard themselves or to withdraw entirely, they cannot imagine becoming friends with a disabled person” (Fisher and Galler 1988, p. 176).

In conclusion, our society has non-considerate definition of disability, friendship, intimacy and gender activities. From Shakespeare’s argument, the fact that gender in the Western society is in transition, makes it even harder for a disabled person. For a disabled person, it is not easy because the society offers a narrow range of options. As seen in the case study of Peter, his friends are chosen for him by his community and it is to reduce the burden of his family. We can see that a person who was not born disabled, loses friends after becoming disabled, and people with physical disabilities, have limited choices on the people they can become friends with. Even when disabled people are friends with non-disabled people, there are various experiences felt because a disabled person finds the need to hide their disability, and non-disabled people can barely tell the difference between physical needs and emotional needs. Therefore, relationships between disabled and non-disabled people are socially embedded with fear, because disabled people and fear occupy a similar space within a society.

Tracy A.

Pic this

While looking for vintage images, circa 1920-30's of Nazi, type, charts of 'invalids' and otherwise destined for the short end of the stick on 'ethnic cleansing' I came across this page.
Called SCOPE.









































































A

Comment Paper for Week #6

Barron, Karin (1997). The Bumpy Road to Womanhood. pp 223-239 in Disability & Society, Vol. 12, No. 2. (Sweden)
Priestly, Mark (1963). Disability: A Life Course Approach. pp.88-115. (Cambridge, UK : Polity)

The topic of this weeks reading was ‘disabled youth’. I think that this weeks articles by Barron and Priestly complemented each other very well. It was nice to read Barron’s stories of personal experiences of disabled youthful women, and then to relate their life experiences to Priestly’s literature.
Although the issue of gender was of bigger emphasis in Barron’s article it was brought up in both. Gender is a part of who we are and our everyday life, but we often fail to look at it critically to determine how it may impact our lives on a larger, social, scale. A very interesting connection between both articles is the reference to women with a disability being viewed differently than men with a disability because they are women. I found it very disturbing when Barron (1997:229) spoke about how some male teachers may ask young female students with a disability if they need help using the washroom. Before reading the rest of her explanation I never would have thought about how this could be a form of sexual harassment or abuse. Even if a young girl were disabled, it would not necessarily mean that she needed help using the bathroom, and if she did need help using the bathroom, there would always be a female teacher around to help her. Therefore, it is very out of line for a male teacher to be asking that. In Priestly’s article he quotes a newspaper interview that stated:
“When you look at the fact that there are so few prosecutions and the law doesn’t provide an effective deterrent, I think society is saying that these acts are trivial compared with those carried out on non-disabled people. You are effectively saying that they should not be treated as seriously.” (Priestly 1963: 100)
When I analyze these parts of both articles I come to the understanding that if an able bodied girl was asked if she needed help using the bathroom by a male teacher and reported it, action would probably be taken against the teacher. But, if a disabled girl was asked if she needed helping using the bathroom by a male teacher and reported it, chances are that nothing would be done because she would be viewed as needing help anyways.
Another topic from both articles and talked about in class was the view of disabled youth as being asexual, not normal, and also the sterilization of disabled people. Barron’s article talked less about asexuality then I thought it would considering Priestly’s article focuses a lot on it and therefore you would expect that topic would come out in her interviews with the six women. But, what I did find interesting from her article was the point that from a young age, girls with a disability are focusing on their physical appearance, but in a different way then able-bodied youth. Barron states that, “the everyday lives of physically disabled girls/women involve a great deal of physiotherapy treatment which aims at ‘correcting’ and ‘making whole’ their bodies. (Barron 1997:230) This is a hard issue for me to deal with being able-bodied myself. I personally think that the physiotherapy and other treatment should happen if necessary for the functioning of the person, but it is awful to think that a young girl might feel like they are being ‘corrected’ because of this.
Sterilization is an awful topic. Although much could be said about this, I would like to focus on two quotations from Priestly, the first stating, “as the proceeding examples show, past and present practices have been highly gendered, and are most likely to involve young women with the label of learning difficulties.” (Priestly 1963: 103) The second states: “Thus, Waxman Fiduccia (2000) concludes that medio-legal intervention in disabled people’s sexuality seeks to control the fertility of ‘dangerous’ women but to restore the potency of the ‘damaged male’”. (Priestly 1963: 103) From these two quotations, the conclusion can be drawn that sterilization was a highly gendered thing, placing more of the discrimination and oppression on disabled women. Although none of the women in Barron’s article had been sterilized, they speak of other people continually telling them that they will not hold a job or get married or have children of their own because of their disability. “Motherhood in our culture is viewed as an essential part of womanhood” (Barron 1997:232) and by telling a woman that they will probably never experience this joy in life because they are disabled is an extremely discriminatory thing to say. I feel as though both of the readings were useful towards my understanding of the oppression youth with a disability face, although I don’t feel as though I gained a better understanding of how to over come these barriers through my readings. The authors may not have wanted to touch on that aspect of it but I feel as though the education of able-bodied people and of caregivers of youth with disabilities may lessen some of the oppression they face. I also think, after reading Barron’s article, that youth who do have an impairment or disability need to work together on all aspects of their life to make their voice heard, not just when cut backs in funding are made or when a larger issue comes up. (Barron 1997: 226) If it is easier for a youth with a disability to have his or her voice heard when they are part of a group or organization then that is something that they should be doing to counter more of their oppression.

Week 6: Disabled Youth

Karin, Barron (1997). “The Bumpy Road to Womanhood.” Disability and Society 12 (2): 223-239

Mark Priestley, Ch. 4 of Disability: A Life Course Approach

In the assigned readings they discuss the importance of the transition period between childhood and adulthood. As young children, we are oblivious to the world around us without a care in the world, but as we grow and interact with other people, we can see the changes that can or may occur throughout this time change. These next two articles compare and contrast disabled and non-disabled youth, reasoning around the unique transitions they experience based on their gender, age and cultural affects. It is evident in the readings that many societal constraints subject youth and women to certain stereotypes depending on the severity of their impairments.

The first article, The Bumpy Road to Womanhood by Karin Barron, describes the knowledge and experiences of young disabled women from Sweden. In the Swedish society they acquired a realistic approach in regards to disabled youth; they are expected to accept their impairments and remain independent. This reiterates the idea of independency and dependencies by showing young disabled women trying to live in a society that claims to be independent. Not only do they have to be independent they must accept their disabilities, and after all said and done they are described by society only as that, disabled, rather than a certain sex. I found this to be a very negative attribution, this not only devalues disabled individuals, but also this diminishes women as a sex. In Sweden’s society, much like Western society, autonomy for young disabled women is non-existent. These young women have to act together, ‘collective action’, and form as one to be listened to by decision makers in order to ensure certain rights. A profound example of collective action that I can think of is the Women’s Rights Movement; where many women collaborated together in order to reach an agreement for their rights and rights for all women. All the young women in the article are doing just that, trying to attain autonomy through civil disobedience, as one they are refusing to obey certain laws and avoiding certain stereotypes of not only women, but those with disabilities as well. Most women have a common dream of womanhood, growing up, getting married and having a family. We can see how society makes it difficult for these individuals to accomplish such a goal by labelling them as asexual. If an individual has a disability does that deny them the right to be sexual? Certainly not!
In this article, the body and youthfulness are both used to describe the norm of what is ‘acceptable’ socially. If the body is youthful it is accepted as beautiful according to society. According to the norm, people want to be ‘normal’ and have the ‘perfect’ body. This is not only evident by diets, but others workout on a daily basis in order to attain the ‘perfect’ body and to be physically attractive in a youthful image. I wonder how interesting life would be if we were all ‘perfect’ with nothing to differentiate between each other. This article describes another example where those involved in physiotherapy treatment, individuals with disabilities and their body are aimed to be ‘corrected’ in order to be ‘normal’ and accepted. These norms are a way of controlling these young women and setting the norm for femininity. Everyone has something different about them, whether its hair, weight, height, age etc. The best thing about difference is that it makes the world interesting and helps us learn about all facets of life.

In chapter 4, Mark Priestley’s Disability and Youth, discusses issues regarding age, cultural space and the body, much like the first reading. Many of the same issues from the first reading are tied together through similar ideas here. Agreeing to Karin Barron’s article, Priestley emphasizes the identity of youth and how it is distinguished by disability culture, offering the affirmation of identities. In other words, Priestley explains how society views individual’s disabilities as who they are, personally, not based on their personality but their disability. Our culture these days puts too much emphasis on individualism and independency, and this idea reiterates itself throughout the articles. We can see this in our society, where youth are living at home longer so they can continue to go to school and support themselves, eventually to attain a career to support oneself, a family and become independent. As read in the previous reading, the body is an important marker of ‘beauty’ and social norms. Priestley describes the culture and social structure of the body as a marker of youth. For instance, there are many forms of eating disorders and diets used to strive to attain the perfect body by means of purging and/or fasting. On the other hand, there are males trying to exercise and lift weights to have defined muscles and feel socially accepted as ‘attractive’. This can explain a high social value attributed to youthfulness through fitness and beauty. However, the myth of bodily perfection makes individuals with impairments seem of lesser value and unable to achieve ‘normality’ and ‘beauty’ because there body is not ‘perfect’ in societies standards. As we discussed in the first reading, we are introduced to the idea of young disabled women being asexual and the unfair recognition as non-sexual beings. Society is too concerned with eugenics and making the perfect human race, for example, sterilization was a way to keep disabled females from being sexual or reproductive. Still today, these young girls are denied their right to express sexuality because they are assumed to be at risk for sexual threats, more so than non disabled young women. A perfectly healthy woman can have a baby with the chances of the baby being born unhealthy; similarly, disabled women have the same probabilities. Everyone at any given time is at risk for threats no matter their sex, race or age; therefore the decision for women to have children should be made by the women themselves. This is very discouraging, as sexuality is very healthy and anyone denied the right to be a sexual being is denied their freedom of rights. Similar to the first study, the UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for People with Disabilities, led by disabled women and activists as a group worked as one on the emergence of a “sexuality and disability movement”. This movement offers a change in the lifestyles of individuals with disabilities and their ability to attain acceptance from others.
We can see how independency repeats itself within the two readings in a variety of factors. Managing the transition period between childhood and adulthood is essential to see what kind of adulthood young disabled people are prepared for. Throughout both readings we understand the structural categories of both youth and disabled women and what they have to endure throughout the transition period into adulthood are based on their ability to conform to the norm of society and become independent. Society could make it easier for young women to live in an environment and conform to others if we can all accept differences and the importance of each imperfection.

What does that kid feel like knowing that his mother wished she could have prevented him being the way he is?

Week 5: Issues in Bioethics and Human Rights

Adrienne Asch, “Disability, Bioethics, and Human Rights” Readings Package #13
Mark Priestley, Chapter 2 of Disability: A Life Course Approach


Would you terminate a child if you found out from prenatal screening that he/she has Down syndrome or an imperfection? “Is it appropriate to use technology and skill to sustain the life of someone who would have a disability”?

The two articles this week pertain to the same topic: bioethics and eugenics. Both articles revolve around the medical perspective. The medical perspective in the first article by Asch revolves around the issue of bioethics. The field of bioethics looks at health and illness, and what constitutes a life worth living. Asch also looks at how prenatal testing and selective abortion is trying to slowly decrease the number of individuals with disabilities or impairments in our society.

“Bioethics has supported claims that life with disability should not be maintained”. An example of this would be family members making the decision for those with a disability, or mental impairment, who want to end their life or want physician assistance in dying. Another example of this would be prenatal testing and selective abortion. Going back to the question of whether you would terminate a child if you found out he/she had an imperfection, what would be the determining factors? It is not only a personal choice a couple faces, but one that is mainly influenced by the public. Asch states, health care professionals and theorists, believe prenatal testing, and if detection is found, will “promote family well-being and the public health”. Personally, it seems the medical perspective is trying to slowly eliminate the number of people with disabilities in society because of the stigma and stereotypes that go along with being disabled or impaired. An unborn child, with a disability, should be given the same chance at life as those babies who are conceived to unsuitable parents.

Priestley makes the point that there is also a lot of pressure on mothers to have a “normal baby”. Mothers are “supposed” to have normal children and if they do not produce one, it may seem to the woman that she has failed at child bearing and being a good mother.
Due to prenatal testing, it leads us back to the medical perspective where it has a large influence on reproductive choices. In a way, due to eugenics and prenatal testing, it allows for us to “control” who we want in society. If parents decide not to have their child, due to medical reasoning, would our society be “disabled free”, 50 years from now?

I believe we are “disabled” in one way or another. We all have our own little quirks and weird habits, however, how does this make us seem “normal”, when in reality, we are just the same as the person in a wheelchair. Because our society is focused largely on individuality, it has now become the new conformity. With everyone trying to be different, we are all moving toward similarity because we do not know how to be different.

In the chapter by Priestley, impairment is seen as “undesirable” and the main purpose behind prenatal screening and selective abortion is to reduce the number of children born with disabilities. Terminating a child does not only revolve around the fact that a child has a disability. It also includes social, economic and familial issues.

The direct-action protest group Not Dead Yet, argues singling out those with disabilities or impairments, as people who want to end their lives, is a very narrow minded approach to disability. They believe those who are impaired should end their lives because their lives are “understandable of less value to them and to others…”. Again, it goes to show that society believes this is what the disabled person wants, just because they seem to be living in pain or difficulty. However, “every life has burdens, some of them far worse than disability”.

I found the views of those in Asch’s article to be very negative. Everything surrounding those with a disability has to deal with politics and it shows how strongly society has an effect on parents and their decision to whether or not to keep their child.

I believe the public, society, family units, societal norms all play a large influence on parents who face the decision to terminate their child or not. However, it is up to the parents to decide if they are prepared and ready to have their child face a world of stigma, stereotypes and most of all, a society that is too focused on the able bodied and being “normal”.

Week 4 - The Built Environment as Disabling

French, Sally (1993). What’s so great about independence?, pp 44-48 in John Swain, Vic Finkelstein, Sally French and Mike Oliver (eds.). Disabling Barriers —Enabling Environments (London: Sage).

Gleeson, Brendan (1999). Can technology overcome the disabling city? pp 98-118 in Ruth Butler and Hester Parr (eds.). Mind and Body Spaces: Geographies of Illness, Impairment and Disability (N.Y.: Routledge).

Imrie, Rob (1998). Oppression, Disability and Access in the Built Environment, pp 129-46 in Tom Shakespeare (ed.). The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives (London, Cassell).

This articles assigned discuss how there is a barrier in society that stops disabled people from moving through life and accomplishing what they need to. They discussed independence and why it is important that we be independent; the different technologies that may/may not benefit disabled people, and how buildings are built with accessibility worked into the building design, all of these are explained in relation to how they affect a disabled person’s life on a day to day basis. The first article What’s so great about independence? discusses how independence is something all disabled people are told to attain, and people assume that a non disabled person in independent. All people are dependent in one way or another no matter age, race or capabilities, an example of this is as a student with no car I rely on the bus to show up and get me to school on time. When a person is pressured to be independent they are also pressured to conform to the norms of society. An example of this would be when my father goes out in public in the summer he likes to wear long pants so that he does not have numerous people gawking at his prosthetic leg, he does not like drawing attention to it and it is still fairly new for him, by covering up his leg he feels normal.

The second article Can technology overcome the disabling city? discusses how people believe that new technologies can cure disabilities, and will help a person become a ‘normal’ member of society, the problem with this idea is many people do not have access to the technologies. The built environment is made to suit the average person; some of the things that cause a disabled person to not access the built environment are broken surfaces that reduce the use of devices, entry into buildings with stairs and manual doors, public transportation, and public information such as signs. An example of this is a hockey rink in Toronto, built within the last 5 years, the arena parking lot had handicap parking, automatic door openers, to get to the doors there was no causing someone in a wheelchair to have to find another way into the building, they could not access the building on their own. This makes a person feel dependent and incapable of completing tasks. If disabled people had proper access to buildings they may have better chances of getting jobs that suit them. Many countries around the world are working to better society and the built environment, New Zealand is being met with a great deal of resistance, and Germany has set an ‘obligation of employers to employ severely disabled persons’.

The third article titled Oppression, Disability and Access in the Built Environment discusses how accessibility for disabled people in public places has became a prominent issue in past decades, not everything in society is adapted so disabled people can access them. Schools for Architects teach the bare minimum about making a building presentable as well as fully accessible. Cities have been built with a certain person in mind and that is the male who is about six feet tall, muscular, and is able bodied both mentally and physically. It is interesting that in Canada where we are supposedly trying to help the disabled access the places they need, and many people are not aware of the term wheelchair accessible. In 2006 my father was looking for an apartment in Toronto that was accessible, because at the time he was in a wheelchair, when I called numerous apartments about accessibility I was met with answers such as “umm . . . yes . . . I think so?”, “what does that mean?”, “well yes but we have two steps into the building”. These people it seems were rarely in contact with disabled people and had a sense of sameness, just as the Architects. There has been a great increase in making the built environment accessible, but there is still plenty to do.

The articles tie in to the topic of independence in our society, disabled people, especially those using a device do not have the ability to access all buildings to complete daily tasks. The articles look at the ways in which an individual is unable to become an active and ‘normal’ member in society. Independence is not possible for people to attain whether they are disabled or non disabled because we all rely on others to help us live our daily lives. Disabled people are no more dependent than non disabled people. These articles support each other and the fact that many places in public are not accessible. Being able to access any building is important to a disabled person because it gives them freedom and many possibilities especially for employment. These articles were very helpful to further my understanding of disability. As a non disabled person I cannot truly feel how a disabled person in society feels when they cannot access a certain building, or how they feel when they ask for assistance. By seeing how society is stuck on the image of the ‘normal’ person, I can see why many people are being left out of this ideal. Now that my father is classified as a disabled person and uses a wheelchair on occasion and a prosthetic leg on most occasions, I am given a better insight to the way disabled people struggle to access basic parts of life that most access easily and take for granted. Companies should be looking to include accessibility when opening a store or make old locations accessible. With much of society being accessible other parts that are not as accessible are trying to lure the disabled in by giving them a device to make shopping easier. Some stores are accessible through the main door and have two levels but no elevator, instead they have a moving sidewalk in this case the store has employees standing at the top and bottom of the escalator to assist people to the upper or lower level, they are not able to access the other half of the store by themselves, which limits their freedom. Accessibility is an issue that needs to be taken more seriously and put as a major political concern.

Leilani Muir

The Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Canada introduced the Sexual Sterilization Act (1928). This act was to protect the gene pool, allowing the government to sterilize the mentally disabled persons so there would be no offspring created by them for they could only create undesirable children. The eugenicist believed that if these people had children they would inherit their mental illness, criminal behaviours or any other deviant behaviour they might have.
They even believed that they had a higher reproduction rate then the normal person without any physical or mental problems. You might think they thought these people bred like rabbits, how stupid can people be and the sad part of this is there are still people out there that believe that they still should be sterilized.
Some of the five prominent women of Canadian history supported the bill, Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Irene Palby, Nellie McClung, who believed that they had to keep the gene pool protected.
Leilani Muir was put into a school for the Mentally Defectives at the age of 11
At the age of 14 (1959) Leilani Muir was sterilized at the consent of the Alberta government. Why was she sterilized at the age of 14 because some of Alberta's finest passed a law to sterilize anyone who they deemed 'not fit' to bear children. She was given an IQ test in which she failed I presume and that gave them enough evidence to proceed with the sterilization of Leilani Muir. A doctor told Leilani that she could bear no children for what they had done to her insides was considered a slaughterhouse. She began a suit against the government in October of 1989, and won her case on January 25th, 1996 on wrongful sterilization and confinement she won $740,000. It took her seven years to get her case awarded this amount. Was she really compensated for all the emotional stress they had put her through. No, for no one can ease the hurt that someone thought her unable to be a mother, or, grandmother. How can anyone compensate for that. There is no real healing here just cheap compensation.
They performed castration and testicular biopsies on men with Downs Syndrome. Why would they do this when they were sterile from birth? I wonder if it was just science intervening and not the fact that these men could not contribute to the next generation.
The Sexual Sterilization Act came into effect in 1928 and was repealed in 1972. It effected the lives of approximately 3,000 people who could not reverse the sterilization. Those whom the prominent people thought to be unfit to have children were immigrants new to the country, women who had no husbands, epileptics, alcoholics, natives and the poor. Today Leilani and others are suing the government for sterilizing them without their knowledge.
Leilani sued the government and won

WEEK 4 COMMENT PAPER

The built environment as disabling

French, S. (1993). What’s So Great About Independence? Disabling Barriers:
Enabling Environments, 45-48.
Gleeson, B. (1999). Can Technology Overcome The Disabling Society?
Mind and Body Spaces: Geographies of Illness, Impairments and Disability, 98-118.
Imrie, R. (1998). Oppression, Disability and Access in the Built Environment.The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives, 129-146.

Independence is generally something persons with a disability or an impairment desire more than anything else. However, is there such a thing as being too independent? This issue is brought up in many ways in Sally French’s article What’s So Great About Independece? She profoundly describes independence and how too much of it may create such consequences for disabled people such as, restricting their lives rather than enriching them. During her time as an assistant housemother in a residential school for multiple disabled children, she witnessed a young boy trying to remove his socks off for a period of 15 minutes which he was eventually successful in doing so after rubbing his ankles together. She argues how even though independence may be important to most able-bodied persons, it may be an intolerable chore for persons with an impairment. Writers such as Shearer and Sutherland argue that insisting independence for people with an impairment may also be considered as a form of oppression. Since persons with a disability may already be slower than others at completing such tasks, it is nonetheless necessary to prolong their task by expecting them to be fully independent. French also discusses on the topic of technology. She states that even though technology may speed things up for persons with an impairment, it may isolate them as well since they are fully dependent on technology as opposed to asking for assistance and creating interpersonal relationships.

In contrast to the statement which Sally French makes about how technology may reinforce the isolation of persons with a disability, Brendon Gleeson’s article argues that technology may in fact be a cure for their disability as these ‘rehabilitating’ forces will help disabled people overcome the socio-economic ‘handicaps’ they face. Gleeson believes that technological invasion may help persons with a disability become ‘socially accepted’ and may also help turn the disabled person into a ‘normal’ citizen or worker.

Gleeson also argues that the physical layouts of societies discriminates against persons with an impairment as they do not take into consideration their mobility requirements. According to him, there are three answers in which architects do not take into consideration their mobility requirements, which are: the natural limits, the thoughtless design, and the historical-geographic construction. As described in his article, the natural limits and the thoughtless design share the same importance for environmental modifications to buildings and access routes. However, the historical-geographic construction does not agree with relying exclusively on environmental modifications.

Similar to Gleeson’s article, Rob Imrie’s Oppression, Disability and Access in the Built Environment also discusses on the topic of persons with an impairment and how they face many challenges when it comes to their surrounding environments. He argues how most built environments discriminate against persons with an impairment due to the fact that they do not take into consideration bodily differences when they are building their facilities. In his article, he uses the example of clothes retailers and how most of them only have a restricted amounts of changing facilities for people in wheelchairs. Mcglynn and Murrain argue how architects have a restricted understanding of bodily differences and do not consider mobility requirements, which therefore, create an alienating environment for people with impairments. According to Imrie, this type of architecture is also known as a non-contextual architecture, where buildings are strictly built to express function and structure.

I personally believe that environments should be built for both able-bodied persons, as well as persons with impairments. By failing to do so, exclusion and segregation arises, which create an unhealthy, negative surrounding for those with impairments. Fortunately, according to the articles which I’ve read and described briefly up above, there have been an increase of buildings and facilities taking into consideration people’s mobility requirements. Since there has been an increase of buildings taking into consideration people’s mobility requirements as they build their facilities, we are able to observe how many buildings include ramps for persons in a wheelchair, as well as more elevators and handicap bathroom stalls. I believe that our society is on the right path in creating a more inclusive and healthy environment for all, especially for those with impairments, and I strongly hope that our society will continue to evolve into a community where persons with impairments feel socially accepted, just as they should.

Comment Paper for Week 4

French, Sally. (1993). What’s so great about independence? In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein,
S. French and M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling Barriers: Enabling Environments. (pp.
44-48). London: Sage.
Gleeson, Brendon. (1999). Can Technology Overcome the Disabling City? In R. Butler
and H.Parr (Eds.), Mind and Body Spaces: Geographies of Illness, Impairment
and Disability. (pp. 98-118). New York: Routledge.
Imrie, Rob. (1998). Oppression, Disability and Access in the Built Environment. In T.
Shakespeare (Ed.), The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives. (pp. 129-
146). London: Cassell.

Independence is usually viewed as being a great and wonderful thing that everyone is suppose to want to have, right? Well that is the case for some of us, but not for everyone. Sally French and Brendan Gleeson discuss how it is the belief of the able-bodied that disabled people want to be independent and that technology helps disabled people to be more independent, and in a way fixes them. Rob Imrie on the other hand discusses disability as a form of oppression in society caused by the structural environment around us. All articles lead to the idea of disability being seen as oppression.
Sally French and Brendan Gleeson both have written about disabled people being fixed and becoming independent due to technology. French, who has a disability says that she “believes that the notion of independence can be taken too far, restricting the lives of disabled people rather than enriching them.” (French 1993: 44) It is my belief that technology has been put into place to help the able-bodied more than the disabled. It is restricting disabled people and causing them to actually take more time to do things. It is a way of the able-bodied to try to make disabled people seem normal by doing things for themselves. French states that “Shearer and Sutherland believe that to insist on independence is a form of oppression. It individualizes disability rather than viewing it in social terms.” (French 1993: 45) The forms of oppression that are referred to here are marginalization and powerlessness. When trying to make disabled people independent, it is not taking them into consideration in the running of society, or not allowing them to have control over the conditions of their own life. It is just not possible for a disabled person to do absolutely everything on their own. They may be able to, but it could take them hours. There is this pressure put on everyone for the disabled to become independent so that they fit into the norm, as seen by the able-bodied.
In Gleeson’s article he discusses how technology is going to be the cause of helping disabled people become more independent. He talks about this independence based on technology as being both a good thing and a bad thing. Gleeson states in his article that “techno-enthusiasts have proclaimed that new aids and inclusive designs will progressively ‘correct’ for physical impairments and thereby turn the disabled person into a ‘normal’ citizen or worker.” (Gleeson 1999: 98) The able-bodied are concerned with trying to make disabled people part of the norm, rather than trying to actually help them. I believe that there are many devices of technology that do help disabled people become more independent, such as driving sticks for the people in wheelchairs, but technology being used to help disabled people become independent can also be a bad thing and cause them to be oppressed by not taking into account the people with the physical impairments when it was designed or built. Gleeson states that “technologies often disadvantage disabled people by requiring high levels of education, technical skills, self confidence, and in many cases physical dexterity.” In my opinion technology, to an extent makes disabled people more disabled, because when it is taken into consideration what to build and where to build it, it is looked at from an able-bodied perspective instead of a disabled perspective. Therefore, things are not made to benefit the disabled, but rather to benefit the able-bodied, although it may look like the disabled are being taken into consideration.
In Imrie’s article his discussion is more on how the built physical environment has come into play to associate disabled people with oppression. He discusses how the environment is built, based on only thinking about the able-bodied. Imrie talks about buildings and equipment being built “premised upon the idea that human behaviour was wholly predictable and knowable, the human beings conformed to a type, to particular patterns of (able-bodied) normality in both bodily and mental terms.” The emphasis here is on sameness, and the normal and this is what environments are built on the basis of. No wonder it is that disabled people are viewed so different, because they are not able to fit in even if they wanted to. Disabled people are seen as being different and able-bodied individuals do not want to be seen as being associated with different. Imrie uses a good example in his article to help illustrate this. A building was built, but at the time of building the front doors they were not accessible for disabled people and instead of making the front doors accessible they decided to make side doors for the disabled to use. This is how disabled people become oppressed through marginalization and not being treated as a member in society. It is as though disabled people have no control over the conditions of their life.
It is clear that disabled people are viewed by the able-bodied as wanting to be independent, but that throughout the process of disabled people trying to become independent they are oppressed, by not having their opinions or attitudes toward their life taken into consideration. Sally French, Brendan Gleeson, and Rob Imrie have all expressed ways in which disabled people become oppressed through independence, through technology, and through their environments. Disabled people are not seen as normal so it is the able-bodied that believe they know what is best for the disabled, even though it may only cause them to become more disabled.

Week 4 Comment Paper

French, S. (1993). What’s so great about independence? Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments. London: Sage. pp

Gleeson, B. (1999). Can technology overcome the disabling city? Mind and Body Spaces: Geographies of Illness, Impairment and Disability. New York: Routledge.

Imrie, R. (1998). Oppression, disability and access in the built environment. The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives. London: Cassell.



Independence is something that all individuals strive for, and once we achieve this asset we do all we can to maintain it through out our lives regardless of our capabilities as human beings. Having someone strip us of our independence however is almost like a slap in the face, for all. 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. The idea of independence is discussed in Sally French’s article, “What’s so great about independence?” French (1993) comments that this idea of independence tends to restrict rather than enrich the lives of those who are disabled. Being disabled does not necessarily mean that you are not capable of providing, caring or living for yourself, it just simply means that those who are disabled have a different time line for all of these activities.
The common themes in all three articles seemed to be this idea of independence as well as the technological aids that we see as a savior to all our problems, that we rely heavily only to be let down in the end. Technology can not cure an individual’s limitations it can only provide some assistance. Gleeson (1999) provides an insight as to how technology can provide better access to public buildings, transportation and even in the workplace, yet most cities lack the design for these particular individuals that may be in need of a ramp, elevator or even a fitting room that has the capacity to fit a wheel chair into. How society can choose to restrict those with limitations these rights is unreal, however what is more disturbing is that this problem still exists today. We can look at our own University. Some hallways are not large enough for a wheel chair to roll down with the flow of other students as well as the access to our elevators is limited as they only work how many days of the school year.
As able bodied individuals we take the simplistic things of everyday life for granted, without acknowledging the fact that some people struggle with these simplistic things. For example, Imrie (1998) discusses the simple task of going to a cash-dispensing machine. A technological device that provides access to all who desire. Wrong, these machines are placed too high for those restricted to a wheel chair. Once again, technology sets us up for failure instead of making life easier as well as leaving an individual with a limitation feeling dependant as they must either find another way to access this machine or rely on others to provide the service for them.
As we live day to day, we continue to use these technological aids that are provided for us to help make our daily activities simpler, but for some of us these advances do nothing but cause frustration. It is clear that we do not always think of others when developing these aids, we think of others that are like ourselves, but it is those others that are faced with limitations that we should be thinking about. The same when it comes to ones independence. We all like to maintain our independence to a certain degree and by having to rely heavily on these technologies we seem to minimize our independence greatly.

Hi Folks

Thanks for being a great, and interactive class today, my first full attempt at 'guest lecturing.'

Please keep in mind that you need to send comment papers to me (andriko) and to sharon, as in, both of us need a copy.

my email, is alozowy at lakehead u dot ca

In addition. Readings for Mark Priestly - have been left on Sharon's office door for your copying pleasure - please be gentle with them as many people will need to use them, keep them in order, and return them promptly. The chapters that you need for the course are all there.

la - ciao

An Excellent Video

Hi Everyone, below is a video that I found very interesting, it is a woman talking first hand about her life and titles that she has been given. I think that it is very informative as we have been discussing social aspects of disability in class! listen to this excellent source!

Thanks! Lesley

Talk

http://www.drc.org.uk/citizenship/talkvideos/index.asp

disability dance

Jimmy/ Radiohead

testing 1,2

Hello Everyone :)

Southpark and Stem Cells

Just in case you sat through todays lecture and didn't manage to catch all the subtleties of Dr. Sharon-dale Stone's lecture, the issue of Stem Cell research was mentioned.

Allow me to add some fuel to the fire for a potentially contentious discussion on the topic.

First, let me mention that I have been collecting media references to depictions and representations of disability, especially on television and film. I'm especially interested in television representations because these forms are so widely disseminated and their influence is unmistakable.

So, even though some of you may think the the television show 'Southpark' is nothing but low-brow potty mouth humor, and some may think its the greatest show on earth, I suggest that screening a few episodes to analyze content and issues may serve us well in terms of debate. We are not debating the show itself, rather, we ought to take a critical point of view, in terms of content and issues of ethics in order to form a critical discussion.

This is not a requirement.

Watch: Southpark:

Season 5 - 'Kenny Dies'
(http://allsp.com/)

& Season 7 - 'Krazy Kripples.'
(http://allsp.com/)

Once you have screened the episodes return to the blog to post your comments and thoughts.

a

Week 3 comment paper

Cynthia Anne Tighe. (2001). ‘Working at Disability: A Qualitative Study of the Meaning of Health and Disability for Women with Physical Impairments.’ Disability and Society 16 (4): 511-529.
French, Sally. (1993). ‘Can you see the rainbow?’ The roots of denial, pp. 72–77 from Swain, Finkelstein, French and Oliver (eds.). Disabling Barriers: Enabling Environments. London: Sage.
Murphy, Robert. (1995). Encounters: The Body Silent in America, pp. 140-158 from Benedicte Ingstad and Susan Reynolds Whyte (eds.). Disability and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.


Spina bifida, multiple sclerosis, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disability, Down syndrome, paraplegia and schizophrenia. It may be hard for some to believe that I have committed a grave injustice by placing these words side by side and if I were to ask what is wrong with this grouping some may have no answer. Robert Murphy’s Encounters: The Body Silent in America and Sally French’s ‘Can you see the rainbow?’ The roots of denial were written to not only address this unfairness but to correct it with awareness. Both Murphy and French emphasize their denial of their impairments and disgust with the treatment by others, which may seem to others as illustrating similar intentions. However it is made known that we cannot treat the readings or authors as such. In Cynthia Anne Tighe’s article we see firsthand how a non disabled person learns about being impaired and struggles with this idea of their individuality. In actual fact in order for us to understand disabilities we must recognize every person as an individual with different needs and wants as illustrated in their personal stories.

Robert Murphy and Sally French have both chosen to write about living a life labelled as being disabled. Each can account for many times in their lives when they would be forced to deny their impairments in order to ‘fit in’ in society. French who is partially sighted explains this by saying, “As a child, explaining my situation without appearing disagreeable, sullen and rude was so problematic that I usually denied my disability and suffered in silence.” (French 1993: 70) Murphy who is quadriplegic tries to explain this feeling in a general sense by saying “The disabled in America are pulled back into themselves by their own sense of loss and inadequacy, an impulse to withdraw that conspires with their devaluation by society to push them further into isolation.” (Murphy 1995: 157) In French's work she talks about the pain that the disabled often encounter as a result of living a life of restriction and not having the ability to do specific things. It is clear that both authors are very passionate about their quest to relate to others the discomfort they constantly feel living in a world where it is frowned upon when you are not ‘able’ or ‘the same’ as others.

It is a sad reality that we ‘abled’ must face in the fact that the point of denial for an individual is only reached when they are made to feel so alien that they must cover up the truth. French and Murphy illustrate the reality in which our society relates and treats the disabled. “To the extent that people look on the disabled as an alien species, they cannot anticipate their reactions; the disabled individual falls outside the ken of normal expectations.” (Murphy 195: 144) It may also be shocking but none the less true that these individuals with impairments are often seen, not only by the general public but also by their own doctors, as being of a lower social position. It was illustrated in French’s writing that when she attended a school for the seeing impaired that the instructors were pleasured by the “slightest glimmer of hope that our sight could be improved.” (French 1993: 71) It becomes clear that we must shift our thinking from fixing impairments to accepting them. However we must be careful not to embellish this in the form of viewing the disabled with a sense of pity. French indicates that it is extremely aggravating when others try to make the disabled feel better about themselves. After reading these articles it is clear that the authors want the public to treat them as they are literally and with no more or less attention than they would give to anyone else.

It becomes apparent in Cynthia Anne Tighe’s article that Murphy and French are quite true in their accounts of disabled people and the stigma they carry with them. Tighe has no impairment herself however, by interviewing a number of women in her article she seeks to have some understanding and aware the public. The stories of the women that Tighe interview echo those of French and Murphy in their sense of purpose such as speaking of the stigma that is attached to their disability, in particular when mothers shun their children from paying attention to those who are ‘different’ and the many barriers they have to overcome in a society built for the ‘abled’. However it is in my belief that Tighe may have sought to aware the public of the impaired’s views and opinions however I believe that she has completely contradicted herself in that she has somewhat lumped her interviewees into a group. I found that in her conclusion she was confused by the fact that each woman could not tell her ‘Their Disability Story’, in this way if they did they would be ‘grouped’. However whether subconsiously or not I do believe that she illustrated very well the fact that those without disabilities do label those with disabilities. She talked about her discomfort in the initial meeting of her interviewers; what to say and what to do, which is precisely the awkwardness that Murphy, French and Tighe’s interviewers talked about, when being forced to associate with the ‘abled’.

It is clear that it is in an impaired person’s best interest to be seen as an individual and not as one of the disabled population. Sarah French and Robert Murphy have addressed the public in their writings to try to create awareness and in hopes for change. Cynthia Anne Tighe sets out to do the same however she writes from a non-impaired person’s point of view and in this way we are not adequately enlightened. Despite this all three authors write to raise an awareness of the impaired and their struggles with disability.

The roots of denial

What did everyone think about Sally's life experiences? Did you see how everyone tried to make her able bodied. She is partially blind and is unable to see many things, when she was nine years old she was always told that if she looked this way or moved over that way she could see the beautiful rainbow in the sky. If she is colour blind as well how in the world did they expect her to see a rainbow in the sky. Well the answer is they did not think of the fact she could not see it, all they wanted was her to see, and if she was to move in this direction of tilt her head this way she would be able to see what they saw.
All through her life and her schooling they had blocks that prevented her from saying that she had a disability. She was being taught to ignore the fact that she was almost blind and to do that she must not use a white cane or a seeing eye dog, for that would be enabling her disability. Even in her special schools for the blind she was not able to say she was sad or tell her parents she missed them, for they would censor all the letters and make them look like they were having fun and enjoying school.
It is a sad thing that we have to hide what is wrong with our bodies, because those who know best tell us it is the right thing to do.
Joanne

September 13/06

This is (some of) what I learned today: well, what i learned on Sept 13, 2006

I figured I would repost this to help grease the ol' blog wheels.

Disability is ubiquitous, meaning that it is everywhere, at all times and all places).

Many feel that we as citizens under governmental rule should remain confident in the belief that medical advancement will eradicate the category of disabled/ disability.

Although from a critical disability perspective, that which I am currently studying, one would argue that: the percentage of those born with a disability is very small –

• meaning that even though some feel that genetic screening is the answer to the eradication of disability
• most disabilities are born out of impairments that occur and are acquired through the course of ones life.
• i.e. a person may fall off a ladder and injure their spine, the damage caused to their own person may mean that they are impaired, the time frame may be short or indefinite.
• also, to ensure that one does not focus solely on physical disabilities, a person who may ‘suffer’ a stroke may be affected permanently, mentally in some way that may cause their cognitive functions to function in a manner that may be somehow different than pre-stroke cognitive function.
• Disability and age, although cultural stigma may prophesize that disability affects old people only, or that with old age comes disability, this understanding may also be challenged by more recent statistics that demographically deduce that there are higher ‘rates’ of disability between the ages of 18-65, then there are in the greater than 65 range. Granted, in Canada right now there is an aging population, though one may argue that the shear volume of individuals in the first group greatly outweigh the population totals in the later group.

Another interesting point, 1981, my birth year, became known as
The International Year of Disabled Persons 1981
as declared by the U.N. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disiydp.htm





Apparently this was also the year when, the now famous stick figure in a wheel chair became internationally disseminated. The effects have been very wide spanning. Obviously the original goal was to raise awareness, promote equality and any number of positive public projections. Another view has been that, the image has become quite ingrained into our respective cultures, meaning that disability is often only seen as or only qualified by, someone in a wheelchair- leading into disability is only physical- and also in this direction a plethora of other effects have caused a ripple effect. A major point is that due to our highly visual culture that we as subjects traverse; disability has been negatively stigmatized and has echoed through subsequent visual fields. Meaning that in the vernacular, disability is thought of firstly as a negative visual stigma, i.e. a stick figure in a wheelchair. Something to be avoided like the plague, for fear that one may ‘catch’ this horrible affliction if they are exposed to it for any period of time.

...

Hi. So I changed the format, the look of the blog, a little bit, hopefully it sits more squarely in common browser windows.

Also, very nice to see that we have some action happening on the blog, posts are being made. Nice work. If blogging is new to you and you find it difficult or you are intimidated by the thought of having your writing accessible by the public, take comfort in the fact that our readership likely does not extend past those registered in the class. Please be patient with the process, and do take time to read your fellow students posts. Make comments, add details, debate, this is a forum for us to use as our own.