We wish to encourage comments on comments, and more original responses; here is that or Dr. Whitehead:

____________________________________________

 

 

---

From: L. D. Misek-Falkoff
Sent: Sun 5/30/2004 2:43 PM
To: DisabilityConvention@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DisabilityConvention] REQUEST re Disability "Definition"- A Preference Form, for your appreciated  input to the UN Current Treaty Meetings.

Dear online colleagues:  The Question of whether to include actual Definition, including that of "DIsability" itself,  has been deferred to the latter part of the 3rd Ad Hoc meetings - at or towards the end of next week, concluding June 4, 2004.  On these threshold and vital matters, it will be very helpful to have your views;  please respond as briefly or fully as you may wish, to ldmf@... or to this group or both.  At the m eetings, preference has been expressed for describing by themes and traits what should be in a definition - rather than strictly defining this key and other terms either broadly or narrowly.  We are  much intrested in what you think would be key ideas, items, issues, or even exact /specific phrases - and perhaps among them which seem essential or even absolutely necessary, and which by contrast might just be  helpful.  Also items which should be excluded might be mentioned here.

(There is also available a list of current proposed definitions, which can be supplied, and you might wish to add more.  But presently we wish to gather your general feelings and thoughts about Defining Disability).

------------------------------------------------------ Please check and fill in: ---------------------------------

Anonymous ____ or Name__Dr. Tanya Whitehead_______________________________

Affiliation  University of Missouri_____________________________________________________________

Email if available else Regular Mailing Address__whiteheadt@...____________________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  Do you think the Disability Convention (Treaty) should define Disability?

(For instance, if left to individual States, would that be good or bad or perhaps mixed? Might resulting Definitions be too broad or too narrow, and are there benefits or draw-backs to being very broad or very narrow?)

Yes _x___ No ____

Please explain (fo reach question, please take as much space as you need):

The Treaty should define the condition of "disability" as being reached by either of two conditions:

1. The presence of any condition defined by the country of residence as a disabling condtion or

2. The presence of any condition that would be defined as a disabling condition by over 75% of other countries.

2.  Would you prefer a DESCRIPTION of the elements that should go into any definitions, rather than DEFINITIONS in themselves? (For instance: inclusion of both medical impairments and societally perceived impairments, application to any age and gender).

Yes ____ No _x___

Please explain:

Too many loopholes the more little descriptors we put in.

3. Can you think of further separate or related questions we should be asking about Disability Definitions?

Yes _x___ No ____

Please explain:

Let's try to think of this as the most ENCOMPASSING of documents. Keeping it short and global in language rather than detailed, narrow, or making an attempt to be comprehensive.

THANK YOU  for all you are doing in this regard. We are all so proud of you and your work.

TW

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thank you, L. D. Misek-Falkoff, Coordinator /  Input on Definitions, ldmf@... / for sharing with the U.N. Disability Caucus.