Greetings:
This discussion includes people with pain. And people with "invisible"
disabilities we all by now feel are visible when people care ... post any
thoughts and have a real good weekend. :) LDMF.


> Dear Gregor,
>
> Hello and appreciative aside on your estimable seminal work via Internet
> lists, and additionally thank you very much for providing this link
> presently.
>
> How wonderful it is how soon we can "click" to these materials. Off to
read
> ... for posting next week.
>
> (You surely do encompass complexities with grace and we are all grateful).
>
> :) LDMF.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregor Wolbring" <gwolbrin@...>
> To: <DisabilityConvention@yahoogroups.com>; "Gregor Wolbring"
> <gwolbrin@...>
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 1:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [DisabilityConvention] The Social Model of disability; 'an
> outdated ideology?' / and INTERFACES
>
>
> > Well here my simplistic two cents
> > 1) it is rejected by most policy makers and others that a line can be
> > drawn between severe and not severe as the perception of severity itself
> > is subjective and can't be classified objectively.
> > 2) the connotation of impairment is much more than just bodily
> > difference. It is a term used in general to express the opinion that
> > "that biological reality is deficient/subnormal" and that is the
problem.
> > We all have different biological realities which lead to different
> > abilities/functioning and bodily structures. Question is who decides
> > which is defective subnormal in need of a medical fix and which is seen
> > as a variation still within the parameter of normal which is supported
> > through the accomodation by society.
> > Question is which biological realities are supported and which aren't.
> > Question is who is allowed to live out their self identity based on
> > their biological reality and which part of the biological reality they
> > are allowed to identify with.
> > 3) It is indeed true that everyone is impaired but only if we use a
> > definition of impairment which simple means not everyone has every
> > ability and does not link the term to a norm. For example no human can
> > live under water without technical help therefore every human is
> > impaired. Indeed the medical model lived from the fact that there are
> > subnormal we want to fix, cure to the norm. THis becomes increasingly an
> > antique connotation as we will be increasingly able to "fix" people
> > above the norm (like giving amputees bionic legs which will exceed the
> > abilities of "normal legs") or just add abilities which are not part of
> > any norm yet. This new reality which allows for no distinction between
> > "cure to a norm" and "cure which enhances" leads to a new identity the
> > "transhumanist identity of so called disabled people and non disabled
> > people" which sees the so called disabled and non-disabled alike as
> > deficient in need of augmentations above the norm and addittion of
> > abilities to their biological reality not yet part of a norm.
> > I expand more on the transhumanist model in
> >
> > Wolbring , G. (2003) NBIC,NGO's society and three types of disabled
> > people Paper written for the conference Within and Beyond the Limit of
> > Human Nature October 12-16th 2003 Berlin, Germany soon to be a book
> > chapter in the moment at
http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/boell.html
> > and
> > Wolbring (2004) "Disability rights approach to genetic discrimination"
> > in "Society and Genetic Information: Codes and Laws in the Genetic Era
> > edited by Judit Sandor CPS books Central European University Press ISBN:
> > 963924175X; ( I know I should have used disabled people's rights
> > approach to genetic discrimination).
> >
> >
> > This new model which change further the situation as to who will be seen
> > as impaired (in the subnormal way) or not.
> > I still think the social model has its use because it can demand the
> > support of people with all kind of biological realities and it can
> > counter the danger of the transhumanist model where the new abilities
> > might set the new norm (normative creep) if the new abilities fit with
> > societal philosophies like the western one which adheres to
> > competitiveness and productivity.
> > However I think the medical model starts to become outdated due to
> > changes in the abilities of science and technology.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff wrote:which sees the disabled and
> > non-disabled alike as deficient in need of augmentations above the norm
> >
> > > Hello Colin, thx much for this link. It could be quite interesting to
> > > dialogue with Mr. Shakespeare, who earlier embraced a "social model"
> > > as he says, and now brings impairment back into focus. He does - we
> > > may note with satisfaction - NOT want overmedicalization to take place
> > > or medicalization at all where it's not proper.
> > > So ... what think you of this as what perhaps seems an apparent
> > > rejection of the social model - but which may be rather an attempt to
> > > get at *balance? *
> > > **
> > > That is, one can take comfort, when any "pure" or "purist" idea is
> > > broached, - that it might be stated *in an extreme* in order to get
> > > away from something else (like a pendulum swinging,say, from "classic
> > > to romantic." Just to get away from something not wished, which itself
> > > is seen as extreme.
> > > The social model did that (does that) itself. *Most models do*. They
> > > excluded as well as include. So it is hoped there is comfort in the
> > > parts of Mr. Shakespeare's present essay - at the many points where
> > > indeed he is very inclusive. *And, throughout, he seems quite
> > > concerned that many will disabilities will be left out.* As posted
> > > here I am too, but I'm not special in this. ( Recall discussions of
> > > people with medical problems - injuries and illnesses; that past
> > > discussed topic resonates with this present one).
> > > (A sidenote: I am particularly touched by his observations on what I
> > > call pwp - people with pain. Alone and often desperately in distress
> > > there is no society looking in and judging or oppressing, at least not
> > > at that moment. Though, it is of course clear that the person should
> > > not be stranded by society - a subject discussible under the social
> > > model. I prefer INTERFACE model if model there must be. Sometimes it
> > > is the social side which is prevalent; sometimes an impairment. How
> > > society and the individual meet at particular and individual-sensitive
> > > interfaces can be discussed with this approach. On individual bases.
> > > Life is wondrous and diverse. We have discussed that before, can
again).
> > > Well the good thing is we've been over these things here in bits and
> > > at times here, and now with your post of this article we can focus on
> > > the following footnote in the present Working Group Draft. It conveys
> > > not just words but deep thought by all - *perhaps you have some
> > > comments* - is it helpful here to mention the social model (last
> > > sentence) ? Hope you will share your thoughts. Could it productively
> > > read: social model and medical model both, or reference no model or
> > > does it sit right with you right now ...? Note again this is not part
> > > of the draft text; it reflects values and careful consideration by the
> > > working group and supporters.
> > > Sending very best wishes your way, LDMF.
> > > Linda D. Misek-Falkoff.
> > > President, The National Disability Party.
> > > Member, the Disability Caucus to the UN Treaty meetings; Observer,
> > > Working Group.
> > > _Above is an individual statement_. Post-er is also Recording
> > > Secretary, CCC/UN: Communications Coordination Committee for the
> > > United Nations.
> > > http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/PICTURE-IT-AT-THE-UN. <= invitation.
> > > -----------------------Reference material:---------------------------
> > > *
> > >
> > > Draft Article 3, DEFINITIONS:
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > > "fn 12 re definition of Disability:
> > >
> > > Many members of the Working Group emphasised that a convention should
> > > protect the rights of all persons with disabilities (i.e. all
> > > different types of disabilities) and suggested that the term
> > > "disability" should be defined broadly. Some members were of the view
> > > that no definition of ‘disability’ should be included in the
> > > convention, given the complexity of disability and the risk of
> > > limiting the ambit of the convention. Other delegations pointed to
> > > existing definitions used in the international context including the
> > > World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Function,
> > > Disability and Health. There was general agreement that if a
> > > definition is included, it should be one that reflects the social
> > > model of disability, rather than the medical model. "
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* ColRevs <mailto:colrevs@...>
> > > *To:* danmail@yahoogroups.com <mailto:danmail@yahoogroups.com> ;
> > > Bioethics@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Bioethics@yahoogroups.com> ;
> > > DisabilityConvention@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:DisabilityConvention@yahoogroups.com> ;
> > > treaty-talk@... <mailto:treaty-talk@...>
> > > *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2004 8:26 AM
> > > *Subject:* [DisabilityConvention] The Social Model of disability;
> > > 'an outdated ideology?'
> > >
> > > The Social Model of disability; 'an outdated ideology?', by Tom
> > > Shakespeare and Nicholas Watson... to read a copy of this article
> > > visit link below:-
> > > http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/archframe.htm
> > > I would like to hear disabled people's own views on this article.
> > > Do you agree with the arguments put forward by these authors ?
> > > Why as this articles been suppressed from the Disabled People's
> > > Movement ? Is what these authors are asserting damaging to
> > > collective underclass struggle of the disabled people's movement?
> > > Is their arguments also damaging to the world-wide disabled
> > > people's movement and especially the United Nations Disability
> Treaty?
> > > Kind-Regards
> > > Colin Revell, Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire DAN; and user-led
> > > disabled neurodiverse human and civil rights campaigner, educator
> > > and researcher
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> > >
> > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabilityConvention/
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > DisabilityConvention-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
>
<mailto:DisabilityConvention-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
> >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>