Disability - what's your perception of this - thread is open to all comers

[Janeway]

I've intentionally not put this into the "special needs" section as some people without first hand experience of such issues have said that they find that area of the site a bit of a no-go area (though I'm sure that that is not the intention of regular posters in that area)and I hope that this may be of interest to a wider audience.

In real life I talk often on Inclusive Design to building professionals and the wider world (having been given a thorough education by disabled people)and find that there are still some very strange perceptions and predjudices. Having spotted an 'off the cuff' remark on another thread I wondered if it might be worthwhile and timeous (with the last section of the Disability Discrimination Act less than a year away)to look at the subject of disability.

I'd like to first suggest an alternate view of disability....

....a person may have an impairment in the use of a limb. organ or sensory function, but this only becomes a disability when they encounter an obstacle in the environment (either physical or attidudinal) that will not accomodate them.

i.e. it is the way that we construct our society that is disabling many of our people. An example is that if we put ladders instead of steps in front of buildings more people would be disabled, whereas if we built buildings with the ground floor closer to the ground (level access) less poeple would be disabled in their attempt to get in.

We all have very different needs and abilities throughout our life

• childhood sees young boys unable to pee in urinals due to the height their put in
• old age sees us unable to open doors cos we can't grip the knobs
• pregnancy sees us unable to get out of our car cos of the width of the parking space. Disabled people are not another breed or another gender, those we chose to call 'disabled' simply fall outwith the spectrum of the human condition that we as a society have chosen to cater for within the mainstream. We are all just a step away from being on the other side of that dividing line.

Many of the people who I've worked with reject the "special needs" lable, as they argue that their needs are the same as anyones - just the way you go about providing for those needs might be different.

Most disabled people are striving to work and contribute their talents to the benifit of our ecomomy. Disabled people and their families in this country together currently represent a disposible income of £50billion per year. It is our perceptions that are preventing them working and spending their cash in our businesses - and perhaps our reluctance to face up to the reality of their lives - prefering to wrap them up in benefits and care systems and keep them hidden away. One has to wonder if we're not all missing out here.... what if Stephen Hawking had hung up his braincells when he became ill, or Julie Fernandez (the blond one from 'the office' had been content with benefits - the list goes on - ... would we not have been a less colourful world?

I'll get off my soap box now and listen to your thoughts....

Good thread. I went to a seminar yesterday which included a section on the DDA. Very interesting (although pity there is no financial compensation available for contravening it).

MY experience is with hidden disabilities. My son doesn.t look disabled and physically in pretty much in perfect working order. However there are so many things he cannot access. Interesting as recently a special needs group has been set up locally to cater for children with all disabilities. The children who are having the most diffciulty accessing the schemes they have set up are the autistic children. I think this has come as a huge surprise to everyone (some of the children involved are severely severely physically disabled- yet small changes can make access relatively easy for them). The organisers recognise this and are trying to help, but its proving to be a tricky one.

So I like yor definition. I think it shows a very good understanding of disability.

Jimjams - I'm not sure what you mean by no financial compensation - the whole basis of the act is to allow disabled people to sue if they are discriminated against either in their employment or their access to goods and services - there are certain defences based around unreasonable cost/difficulties associated in adapting building premises etc, but in essence the Act is there to be the financial stick to force businesses & service providers to change their emplyment proceedures, the way they provide their service and (from Oct 2004) to remove physical barriers from their premises.

sorry I meant they cannot compensate the person discriminated against. Also the lawyer said there is no public funding available which makes bringing a case tricky for many. However the threat of it often works.

There are still tricky areas though. One common problem is school trips. My son has a school trip next week, but he can only go because I am available to go with him, otherwise he couldn't. Difficult to invoke the DDA though as its a safety issue- so in other words the school would have good reason to deny him access. Hard to see a way round that sort of thing- and its this sort of problem which makes it very diffcult for me to return to work- and I guess for many other parents of disabled children.

Supposedly, Stephen Hawking did lie around feeling sorry for himself and reading comic books for a year after he was first diagnosed. Then he decided that he wanted to get married so he had better finish up his PhD and get a job (perhaps, because, after all, women of his generation were obviously unable to support a family....)

I believe what you're describing Janeway is akin to the "Social Model" of disability?

Thinking about it I think think there does become a point where disability cannot be compensated for. For example a blind person couldn't be a chauffer. From my point of view that is the problem with autism- you can make everyone in the whole world change what they are doing to satisfy the autistics view of how things should be. (Although you can make life easier by getting rid of things like fluorescent lights and hand dryers).

sorry you "can't" make everyone change.

As an example I cannot force someone to shut their car doors, or boot or whatever. All I can do is grapple with ds1 to prevent him trying to slam a car door on someone's leg. I cna make life easier for him in the home, but not out and about.

Janeway, what you describe is the 'social model' of disability, and exactly the one adult disabled people are campaigning for. Very appropriate on an open thread, because it does bring everyone in, in an inclusive sense. I think you might all enjoy this: it is a piece by a disabled artist currently exhibiting at my workplace

click through all the pages

I'm glad you posted that, Jimjams, as I once said the same sort of thing to my tutor, who gave me a real dressing down. Her attitude was that disabilities were what we (society) imposed on those with problems, by not being flexable enough. I fully accept that we do make real problems for people with disabilities, and we have a moral (and now legal) duty to see that this does not happen. But with the best will in the world, you will never get a blind person to appreciate the glory of a sunset, of a deaf person the beuty of birdsong.

I have felt a little guilty about the argument with my tutor ever since. I felt that she was in some way, belittleing the problems that people have, by saying that they are all surmountable, if only society wills it. Not that you'd want to see a return to the 'brave 'handicapped' person' syndrome either.

Great thread janeway. I agree totally.

Very good argument, Janeway.

I used to work as a careworker and since then I have been continually shocked by many companies' and organisations attitudes to (in particular) wheelchair or even pushchair access. Apart from unecessary steps and ridiculously steep "ramps", there are so many smaller things that companies could do: doors that lock open, wide gangways between tables in pubs etc.

Jimjams - I agree that there should be public funds available for prosecuting companies, but disagree that there should be compensation for those discriminated against. That would open the door for all manner of petty claims and only increase our ridiculous litigation culture. There would be worthy claims too of course, but I think not having compensation is the better way to go overall.

Isn't it a matter of outlook: a basic premise that any 'external' factors which impede anyone, built, attitudinal, institutional, must be addressed, so that people can then achieve THEIR own full potential on their own terms?

Think you have to be careful judging what other people can or can't do. Where there is, for example, a safety factor involving others, it seems common sense to ask whether a certain person is able to fulfil the job Description of a Firefighter, BUT how do you know how a blind person appreciates a sunset? I was on the phone to my blind friend last night and she was ecstatic about the Gaudi architecture in Barcelona, and was describing it's atmosphere in eloquent and poetic tones, having sat in the buildings and on those outdoor rampart things.

I am quite sute that blind people can have a very good appreciation of sculpture, and archetecture, and even the formation of brush strokes in paintings. Beethoven 'heared' his music after he went deaf by feeling vibrations. Helen Kellar 'listened' to music in the same way. These can be valid and enjoyable experiences, life enhancing and worthwhile. But isn't it disengenous to suggest that those exerinces are complete, since they lack all the imput possible?

yup - I'm not suggesting that simply a shift in attitudes and some level access is going to allow my nephew (who has no control over his motion and can communicate only basic needs)to become a lawyer - but it would allow many more people the opportunity to do that if they wished.

I'm pleased to see that the 'social model' is so widely recognised - I'd not used the terminology incase it allowed people to dismiss it as intellectual posturing.

JimJams - I'm not sure what the solicitor said to you but from my understanding he/she is wrong - there have been a number of cases under the DDA thus far (for proceedures) where compensation has been awarded see this

A full guide is available from the Disability Rights Commission

SenoraPostrophy - the Disability Rights Commission has been set up to aid people make claims and will take on test cases that they feel are worthy of prosecution or will allow for a clarification in the law (which is very vaguely worded and is all about reasonable adaptations).

This Act is slong the same lines as the Sex Riscrimination Act and the Race Act - therefore I don't think that we should be worried that it will be any more abused by disabled people than the other act were by women or people of a racial minority. On the other hand it doesn't bode well for achieving equality either.

janeway I suspect the solicitor was being very particular iykwim and I've probably overgenerlaised. Personally I believe that public funding to bring prosecutions is more important. How does sex dicrimination work? IMO it should be the same.

I agree with hmb on the affect of disability. I'm sure my son experiences the world in very unique and worthwhile way, and whilst there are things that can be done to reduce his level of disability it will always be there. I agree totally with Issymum. There comes a point where you remain disabled.

Good thread. I don't like the word disabled very much to be honest - in my humble opinion it's thrown around too much. People have refered to my daughter, who happens to have DS, as disabled and I very much reject that label for her. She is perfectly able to do everything, she just may take longer and need more assistance along the way.

Thanks janeway- you answered - it is the same

hmb: Impairments are impairments, but without being disingenous or romanticised, or carried away by political idealism (as I am very prone to be!) I think it is an important principle not to make automatic judgements about the abilities of ANYONE. My blind friend is a professional actress, I directed shows in which she performed, and she used to be very clear 'I can't juggle, I don't juggle, that's part of my identity being blind...but plenty of sighted people can't juggle, either'. She DID undertake all sorts of performance tasks such as acrobatics, magic, complicated dance steps, we just used to work out HER way of learning to do it. Likewise, plenty of sighted people do not have the aesthetic sensibility to appreciate Gaudi, or firefighter strength. Waffling now, but I'm trying to say it's the 'on my own terms' that is important, not someone else's blanket perception. Look at the things that men used to say women were simply not capable of due to their innate physicality or temperament!

TC- I suspect the DS is very like autism and other spectrum conditons. One end of the spectrum is barly disabled, although they may beed some small changes to be made whilst the other end may have may not be able to participate in "normal" society very easily at all- and under definition used here be quite severely disabled.

When my son was small I didn't really feel he was disabled, as he grows older I feel it more and more as many more things become unaccessible to him.

Tomcat - terminology is a perenial problem - it's very difficult to come up with words that have a positive - or at least a non derogatory association

Invalid = In valid
Handicapped, comes from "Cap in Hand" as disabled people generally had begging as their only career option
the list goes on...

Whilst we're on "branding" - can anyone think of a colour that would represent disability - there is a good perception of the spending/voting power of older people (the grey pound/vote) and of gay people (the pink pound/vote) - can we come up with one for disabled people? A recognition of the spending and voting power of disabled poeple might help shift things?

going off on a tangent here a bit, but...

Yes, discrimination against disabled people should be treated in the same way as sexual and racial descrimination.

However I think many high-compensation discrimination cases have damaged both of those causes (especially sex discrimination. example would be the case mentioned in the shall i tell I'm preggers thread. The company should have been fined, yes, but the case will make small employers less likely to employ women).

I guess you disagree! But yes, I didn't mean to suggest that disabled people would be more likely to bring frivolous claims. sorry about that.

Language is such a b**r, isn't it? I don't describe my DS as disabled, because on the social model, he isn't. He has what his consultant calls a 'significant deformity', which I HATE, I tend to say he has a 'difference' which sounds horribly PC and I think I will end up in Pseuds Corner, he definately won't be a Fireman...but he is a GREAT dancer (in HIS way). Sometimes I say he has a 'mobility disability' which seems less of a blanket label and seems a more accurate description of his slow, limping gait, hypermobile knee etc etc, but we certainly don't face the challenges that go with many neurological or hidden conditions.

I remember the 'saintly parents' thread...we need disability / difference to be incuded in wider society...but can't deny that it brings it's own challenges and difficulties.

does handicapped really come from cap in hand? I knew it had negative overtones and was trying to explain it to dp only yesterday. We thought it came from golf...

Janeway a yellow pound note for bringing sunshine into our lives.