ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Very interesting.

However, four of these descriptions are essentially the same - namely attempts by different philosophies to describe why medical impairment happens.

Only one (number 4) begins to consider what causes disability.

Regrettably, none of what you have said here begins to address or consider the proposal, with which you have persistently chosen not to engage since these blogs began, that disability is a political issue and not a medical one.

You are right Boogaloo ; Until it is widely recognised that disability is a political issue and not a medical one , we are not going to make progress. We will still be judged by what is 'wrong' with us and still considered 'deficient'
And this is at a time when we are moving towards a single equalities body to protect our rights . We aren't going to get our voice heard within this body until we are valued as different but equal , as is the case with gender, race and LGBT.
yes, there medical issues attached to our impairments but there are medical issues attached to gender issues (pregnancy,menopause, gyneacology in general) but we don't hear as much about those any more in discussing equality .
By thinking of the medical model and focussing on impairments , disability will always be viewed negatively . Our impairments are part of who we are, but that is also very much the positive aspects of us as well as any negative bits

In one of my earlier replies to Zephyr I made the point that the main oppression I feel these days is from those who can not see that the social model has its limitations too.

The first two comments above illustrate exactly what I mean by this, as both are essentially dictating how others like myself should think about both ourselves and the world we live in, which in my view is the ultimate oppression.

To that degree at least, if I apply their own logic, it is people like Boogaloo and Alison who are now the main cause of my disability because they fail to accept even a very significant proportion of people with disabilities do not agree with them even on the meaning of that word. LOL

The one thing I think everyone wants is to be treated as an equal as a valued member of society.Impairment is for some people the cause of pain and suffering - yes I will accept that ; for other disabled people it is merely there .
For some people the social model is very relevant - for example (and this is not my impairment so i may stand corrected) for someone who is Deaf since birth, a society where everyone can use at least some BSL is better than one in which there is no way of communicating , in an ideal society everyone would be fluent ...
But , however relevant an individual feels the medical model is them personally - and that view must be respected ; what is important is that wider society embraces the social model so that the general view from the powers that be is not on looking at our impairments but at tackling the physical and attitudinal barriers that can make us feel lesser citizens.
A society that fully embraces the social model isn't going to cure any impairments, there will always be a need for some involvement from the medical profession and nobody is saying that any individual should not strive as hard as possible for a cure.
However, a fully operational social model gives as the right to be treated as equal human beings

"... essentially dictating how others like myself should think about both ourselves and the world we live in, which in my view is the ultimate oppression"

Not so, Peter. To me, the social model is about rights whereas the medical viewpoint is about needs. Just because I believe I am equal and have an absolute right to equality regardless of my impairments in no way restricts or diminishes the right of others who prefer to side with the medical establishment and regard themselves as passive victims of their impairments who need help.

Ok, just to get it out of the way, I and many others actually find being told I am β€œimpaired” offensive and demeaning in just the same way and for just the same reasons I suspect you and others object to the term β€œhandicapped”.

But, more than anything, I hate this repeated assumption that daring to question some aspects of the social model means we, β€œprefer to side with the medical establishment and regard themselves as passive victims of their impairments who need help”.

Please go back and read my comments in the original blog and in our many discussions here on the Ouch Talk forum before making such unfounded, and may I say also arrogant, remarks about how I see myself and why I and others think both the social and medical models of disability have a place.

I'm with Dude on this one. You don't have to agree with the social model, but to understand it you have to separate the medical from the political.

The inability to do that is what forms the basis of most of the criticism it seems.

thats why the idea that disability isn't medical is so horrifying to people. it must seem as though we're dismissing 'suffering' outright. Not true. no sane person ignores the affect of medical impairment.

a medical condition is just that. but because its not called 'a disability' people lose their heads...its bizarre

In the recent discussions on this issue, I haven't seen anyone trying to dictate adherence to the social model of disability.

What I have seen are attempts to clarify the substance and purpose of the social model and to counteract damaging misperceptions about both it and its medical counterpart.

Because anyone who thinks that it would be a good idea to combine aspects of both the medical and the social model has understood neither of them.

Once understanding has been achieved, it's entirely up to each individual either a) to accept that the inherent difficulties in living with their impairment (which may be very great) are completely separate from disabled people's shared experience of being treated unequally by the society of which they are a part, or b) to believe that the simple fact that they have an impairment is the sole root of all their problems.

Bearing in mind, of course, that it was medical model thinking which led to the labelling of thousands of disabled people in Nazi Germany as "useless eaters", and their consequent sterilisation or extermination.

Thanks Nic. Nicely put and diplomatic too ;

"no sane person ignores the effect of medical impairment."

Quite so; Not even me! Particularly when it has such a painful and adverse effect as mine does. It simply isn't the key issue though!

I like the old analogy about stairs.

Stairs disable me because I can't get to the next floor like other people do.
Provide me with a lift (elevator) and I can get to the next floor like other people. The impairment remains, but the disability has gone... just like that!

I'm with the majoprity of views expressed here - I'm not masochistic enough to blame myself or my body for society failing to accommodate me.

"until we are valued as different but equal , as is the case with gender, race and LGBT."

If only that were true, Alison. It may appear that way to those of us who don't belong to the more minority of those groups, but that is not the case - and we all know that sexism still exists, don't we?

Prejudice against Muslims, for example, is rife - I'm sure you've heard/seen it on the news. If not, where have you been?!

My friend is Muslim and, as such, wears a Hijab. She is constantly mistaken for other young women who also wear one, simply because people don't look beyond it. I told her I was quite relieved, I thought it was only we wheelchair users who suffered like this.

I guess it's not as bad as being mistaken for a suicide bomber, as happened to someone recently, here, but still...

I doubt that transgendered people get an easy ride, either.

"Quite so; Not even me! Particularly when it has such a painful and adverse effect as mine does. It simply isn't the key issue though!"

One of the things i find implicitly offensive about this whole thing is the notion of 'i don't fit the social model because i'm in pain and always will be'.

Zephyr went as far as to name conditions, CP and autism, that did 'fit'.

1. if you object to the model on the grounds that you have unpleasant, incurable symptoms then you must be assuming CP or autism don't have any. Wrong.

2. Most of all, if you try and sort the 'adherents' (bad word, i've never seen anyone stick 100% unquestioning, they can't even decide themselves what it is) of the models by condition, or by whether or not 'it hurts', you will fail.

they are people responding to this blog that disprove that theory, frankly i think its disrespectful to them to even suggest it.

In case it hasn't already been emphasised enough, this is not about a disagreement but a plain misunderstanding.

One thing which may be misleading here, Zephyrs is this is all about language. The Social Model is attempting to define what disability is as opposed to merely how it should be dealt with. Therefore, the use of the word disability becomes very specific and we use other words (like impairment) to describe the other of the two issues we face.

That other issue doesn't go away, and it's not no longer a challenge or something to be dealt with, but if the Social Model is valid, arthritis is not a disability. The definition of disability would be changed.

The Medical Model isn't something anyone actually proposed as a good idea; it was defined as a way of understanding the unhelpful way in which the word disability was previously - and is still commonly - understood.

Once again, the question to ask yourself is not, "How do I understand and deal with my experience of having arthritis ?"

The question is, "What connects me as a person with arthritis with all other disabled people? What do I have, if anything, in common with someone who is autistic, someone with visual impairment or someone with spinal injury?"

Could someone please explain what is meant by disability as a political issue?

Thanks! And I found this post really interesting.

Nicola - I am not suggesting that CP and Autism 'fit' the Social Model and therefore don't need to be treated or cured! What I meant was that I've met people with CP and Autism who don't want to be cured, who are happy staying the way they are. I've yet to meet anyone with arthritis who doesn't want to be cured, although I wouldn't be surprised.

I didn't say that I don't need the Social Model either. I certainly do. I need ramps and elevators as much as folks with other diseases. It just won't help me as much as someone without a pain disorder, that's all.

No. You may need ramps and elevators but that is not the social model. it just isn't.

Nor is the social model dependant on not wanting cure.

People have been trying, with varying degrees of patience and diplomacy, to say that all week. But it hasn't stuck. there's still this misinformed idea floating around. not just you.

and with all due respect you can't criticise it properly if your logic is that fundamentally flawed.

As Goldfish said, this is not disagreement, i wish it was because debate is good.

i was like that not so long ago. and then it just clicked, the meaning of the social model.

Doesn't mean i follow it religously , or agree with or understand every thread.

You could ditch it completely if you feel like it , but to be honest right now i don't think you know what you're ditching.

Sorry, i know thats condescending, i'm younger than you. but i'm at a loss for what else to say. Peace.

Why do we even bother susbscribing to words like impairment, disorder etc - which narrowly define us according to some mythical standard of what we should be? And why, when a Disabled person seeks to self-define on their own terms, are they derided as not knowing their own minds? I think we need to roundly reject such paternalistic attitudes.