The Impact of Current Legislation on Social Model of Disability - Literature review Example

Page Introduction According to a United Nations report around 600 million persons constituting around ten percent of the global population suffer from some form of disability. Amongst these, three quarters are in found in developing countries, however only two percent among them are accorded the basic survival ingredients like education and medication. Consequently the relationship relating to disabilities and deficiency plus communal segregation is apparent and overriding across civilization (Quinn et al., 2002). The Equality and Human Rights Commission (2010) indicates that there are approximately ten million individuals in the UK who suffer from some form of disability or impairment (DRC, 2010), (British Council, 2009). This paper therefore seeks to examine the impact of current legislation on the contemporary social model and the linkage to the conventional medical model of disability. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in its “International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health” (ICF) handbook describes disability as besides encompassing physical incapacities but also environmental and specific encumbering barriers (WHO, 2005). The human rights of persons living with disability are now accepted universally under the United Nations Resolutions 48/96 of 20 of 1993 which vest the duty of undertaking the observation of these rights on respective governments (Quinn et al., 2002). Nevetheless, there has been a radical change and outlook regarding the disabled persons whereby the conventional view of compassionate aid has changed to that of rights enshrined in law or human rights. Quinn et al. (2010) thus asserts that ‘human rights perspective on disability means viewing people with disabilities as subjects and not as objects’ (Pg. 1). Thus disabled people are not regarded as awkward but as persons with own civil liberties like any other able bodied citizen hence are not subjected to undue discrimination in all profitable and public structure. Governments and society at large must discontinue the attitude of offering disabled people ‘social welfare’ to according them their rightful benefits as human beings (Wiman and Sandhu, 2004). Disabled people are those individuals that suffer from a physical or mental impairment that has a considerable, undesirable and enduring consequence in their capacity to perform common ordinary duties (McMahon, 2009). These conditions which are ideally included if they take more than a year include: Physical or movement injuries Optical impairments Audio impairments Dyslexia Health situation Psychological well-being complications The network of disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) conversely deplores this view of disability as a medical problem which regards them as abnormal; hence has affirmed the view that people are underprivileged not due to their incapacities but as a consequence of the restrictions forced on them by mind-sets, communal, cultural, financial, and natural barriers to their involvement in the public (Albert, 2005). Thus societal prejudice is the disabling factor and people with an impairment should be integrated in programs especially those involving their own welfare and not be sidelined awaiting morsel of aid. The members of the public who are not disabled are encouraged to ‘mind their language’ when refereeing to the less fortunate physically challenged persons. The vocabulary employed therefore ought to promote integration and be less pessimistic towards the physically challenged people. Some of the common wording like invalid may be taken to mean as not-valid or handicapped as hand-in-cap”. This is reflected in the social model of disability which seeks for a more affirmative approach on the disabled persons and this boosts their confidence and autonomy (McMahon, 2009). The social model derived from the “the Medical Model of Disability” aims at weeding the concept of disabled individuals as having medical predicaments to encouragement and the society to consider them as equal and not necessarily problematic to their kin and friends. Consequently various barriers that inhibit the movement and ease of the physically challenged persons should be removed or improved to alleviate their discomfort. Models of Disability There are five key disability models including "the charity model, the medical model, the social model, the human rights model, and the cultural model” (Arcadea.org, 2010). These models reflect the view of disabled persons as reliant upon the public consequently spawning feelings of sympathy, isolation or prejudice; conversely the other models regard disability as having options, privileges, parity of civil rights, and absorption to conformist society (World Bank, 2004). 1) The Charity Model This model postulates that disabled persons are generally reliant and hence survive out of the generosity of the able-bodied individuals. Thus they are considered as wholly dependent persons that have no capacity to cater for their basic needs (Bloch, 2008). 2) The Medical Model This model refers to disabled persons as those medically incapacitated hence have to constantly seek treatment from health professionals. Thus in this hypothesis, disabled persons are deemed as problematic and have to be treated. 3) The Human Rights Model This model alleges that every person has intrinsic human rights enshrined in law that should be respected whether disabled or not. These are founded on the right to enjoy respectability, independence, fairness and harmony (DRC, 2010). 4) The Social Model This like the human right concept argues that disability is not inability but society conspires to erect barriers that inhibit the full enjoyment or exercise of their individual ability. These barriers include lack of access to schooling, structures, conveyance etc., the ideal model as propagated by the DPOs (Arcadea.org, 2010). Other non-conventional models include: 5) Religious/Moral Model of Disability This model is based on superstitions and religious dogma that suggests that disability is a product of either a curse or punishment for some unknown matter that is visited on the family as retribution. 6) Economic Model of Disability This model is based on a person’s incapacity to perform economic activities due to their inborn or acquired impairment hence is regarded by strategies as economically disabled. However this may include unemployed individuals hence miring the focus on the physically challenged individuals. According to a World Bank Report, there has been “a paradigm shift has moved disability from a medical to a social model” whereby the notion of disability as an “impairment” has evolved to that of human right that frowns upon exclusion and encourages integration into the mainstream activities (World Bank, 2004), (Guernsey et al., 2006). The medical model of disability has been disparaged for viewing the disabled as incapacitated individuals incapable of fending for themselves whereas the social model regards disability not as inability but a barrier that can easily be overcome given the enabling environment by society. Analysing the Diverse Perception Derived From the Disability Models By contrasting between the medical/charity and the social/cultural models of disability, we can discern the different approaches inherent in both approaches. in the medical/charity model, the perceptions are that: persons with disabilities embody a difficulty; persons with disabilities are “ailing” and require to treatment from physicians; individuals suffering disabilities will forever be reliant on others; persons with disabilities are “aberrant” hence are pitied or shunned; the stipulation of adjustment or communal welfare is a “kindness” that should generate humility amongst the disabled persons (Mulligan and Martin, 2010). Conversely in the social/cultural model, the perceptions differ whereby persons with disability are regarded as: publicly consciousness and dedication to the elimination of obstacles; persons with disabilities do not embody a difficulty; barricaded by the public, hence are the hitched through hindrances like official hurdles, physical barricades, knowledge blockade, and mind-set); if barricades are moved, the disabled will function autonomously while wholly involved in public life; persons with disabilities are ordinary folks and difference is common amongst individuals; and the dismantling of barriers to normal life is fundamental human right that should be accorded even to the disabled persons (Mulligan and Martin, 2010). Consequently, there should be: Public consciousness and dedication to the elimination of obstacles: Deference given for the independence of persons with disabilities; Individuals with disabilities develop into energetic applicant of their civil rights; and thus Persons with disabilities must be turn ed into active contributors in the public and part of their society. Significance of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on Disability One of the most significant Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is the enhancement of infrastructure the dilemma of disabled persons. However the plight of the disabled persons has not been included in the MDGs nor its targets and indicators which has been decried by many commentators thus putting in doubt the realisation of the MDGs while ignoring the disabled people (Albert, 2005). The lack of adequate infrastructure has been known to create a disabling environment that perpetuates and generates physically challenged persons. These include lack of conveyance, equipment, goods and services (Wiman and Sandhu, 2004). Predictably, in poor countries the proportion of persons with disabilities is appreciably higher than in developed western economies. Higher population increase also has generated elderly inhabitants who suffer from many infirmities acerbated by inadequate infrastructure. Nonetheless, despite the pervasive grinding poverty in developing countries, the disabled people are the most disadvantaged as they are harshly treated and ultimately survive at “the bottom of the pile” (Albert, 2005, p. 9). Inclusive Education The second MDG aims to “achieve universal education by 2015” however many analysts have questioned the veracity of this due to the total disregard of the disabled individuals particularly in the developing countries (Bloch, 2008), (Barton, 2009), (Ortiz, 2004). According to UNESCO estimates, approximately 98 percent of the more than 150 million persons living with disability in developing nations are not taken to school (UNICEF, 2004). The lack of educational opportunities subsequently begets poverty as these children will not be able to obtain qualifications for employment nor enlightenment hence perpetuating the inherent they cycles of poverty. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Disability, Bengt Lindqvist, the overriding dilemma in the disability outlook is the scarcity of entry to schooling for both kids and grown-ups with disabilities (Peters, 2003). Lindqvist asserted that this was contrary to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights in addition to other international and national statues. In developed countries, the concept of inclusive education has taken centre stage as human rights activists argue that separate schooling is a form of prejudice and education for the disabled should not be isolated. Inclusive education encourages parity to foster multiplicity which inspiration to every other learner (Thomas, 2005). Normally special schools for physically challenged tend to concentrate on vocational training curriculum while ignoring the mainstream educational programmes thus denying the children in such schools their basic rights of normal education which is discriminatory and exclusive. It has been found that the inclusion of disabled students in mainstream schools engender their acceptance by other students who consequently develop a more positive attitude towards them while the disabled gain confidence and access normal learning programmes (Khasnabis and Motsch, 2008), (Beresford, 2004), (Goodley, 2001). Poverty and Disability Correlation Poverty and disability are correlated in a brutal sliding corkscrew. Scarcity forms the basis for some disabling environment and consequently disability creates people who are susceptible to financial, communal and ecological mishaps (World Bank, 2004). It is therefore imperative for states to integrate poverty alleviation strategies that incorporate the disabled persons while ensuring that some of the palpable elements that engender disability like vaccination of children against polio, leprosy plus other preventive measures are urgently undertaken. The nature of the development countries economies which are mainly agrarian based makes it extremely difficult for most of the disabled persons to engage in any gainful employment due to their impairments. This is also expended in the urban areas where they are segregated into the slums which have minimal amenities hence making their lives even more difficult. Other problems include lack of the basic support equipment like wheelchairs, hearing aids, and optical glasses among others. Other society’s view them as jinxed hence are stigmatised or shunned by their own families and hence become beggars in the streets suffering social exclusion. Nevertheless Albert (2005) asserts that disability is not confined to the poor communities but dissects across all communities with similar discriminatory act propagated against them. The UK Disability Discrimination Act (1995/2005) The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), mandated all public institutions and employers to pave way for the easy movement of disabled persons plus other veritable necessities. To cater for learning needs the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) 2001 gave guidelines on how to treat the disabled people including according them equal rights. This was later adjusted in 2002, 2003 and the most comprehensive of 2005 to further integrate the disabled people into society as equal partners rather than individuals waiting for charity or alms (OPSI, 2005). The Disability Discrimination Act (1995/2005) therefore bestows several liberties to disabled persons including that of Disability Equality which stress the need for an enabling environment for the physically challenged individuals (Arcadea.org, 2010). The disabled persons should be at the forefront leading their welfare programmes as well as in research activities that involve their plight hence asserting control rather than being led by able-bodied persons who may not essentially comprehend their intricate issues. This is an approach adopted by research specialists Disability KaR in Europe, Africa and Asia (Albert, 2005). This also encompasses working with DPOs who have a greater grasp of the underlying issues connected to their members hence can better express them. There have been calls for mainstreaming of disability in development embracing government policies whether domestically or internationally to emphasise the plight of the disabled people (Thomas, 2005), (Riis-Hansen et al., 2005), (Ortiz, 2004). Mainstreaming of disability must encompass all political, financial and public fields so that disabled persons profit homogeneously and disparity is not always propagated. Mainstreaming is about disabled persons partake any activity at every echelon of the public sector in regard to their preference, freely and not encountering any hurdle (Riis-Hansen et al., 2005). The strength of the DPOs has become apparent as political overtones have shifted in favour of the disabled who are now accorded more liberties, inclusion and rights (Ne’eman, 2009). There are three main societal barriers that hinder the effective inclusion of disabled persons into the conventional activities, which are environmental, institutional and attitudinal obstacles. According to Guernsey et al. (2006) some of the public obstacles or barriers that are practised or erected against disabled persons include: Environmental obstacles encompass unapproachable structures, educational centres, hospitals, hose pipe, conveyance, and communications. Institutional obstacles encompass statutes that isolate other individuals with disabilities, or a lack of rules that may offer or facilitate the arrangement. Attitudinal obstacles encompass pessimistic typecasting of individuals with disabilities, public shame and blatant prejudices. Conclusion Disability is not necessarily inability; hence the outdated view of regarding physically challenged individuals as incapable of independent existence has been discarded. There are indeed persons deemed as disabled who are very talented thus the shift from the compassionate view to that of social inclusion in all spheres of lives by generating an enabling environment devoid of the many social and physical barriers that often isolate them. The passing of various legislation in the UK and internationally has thus legitimised this modern social model into mainstream acceptance of disabled persons to lead “normal” lives without prejudice. Nevertheless, the conventional medical model of disability is still relevant since some of the recurring impairments are curable or preventable particularly among infants and the elderly who must be treated to cure the disability. References Albert, B. (2005). Lessons from the Disability Knowledge and Research (KaR) Programme. Healthlink Worldwide. Arcadea.org. (2010). What Is Disability Equality? Retrieved November 7, 2010, from Arcadea: http://www.arcadea.org/d_equality.html Barton, L. (2009). Disability Studies and the Quest for Inclusivity: Some Observations. London,: University of London. Beresford, P. (2004). Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research. Leeds: The Disability Press, pp. 208-222. Bloch, F. S. (2008). Disability Benefit Reform and the Contract for Income Support. Oxford: University of Oxford. British Council. (2009). Promoting Disability Equality: A British Council guide. British Council . DRC. (2010). Disability Rights Commission (Now the Equality and Human Rights). Retrieved November 8, 2010, from Now the Equality and Human Rights Onlin: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/ Goodley, D. (2001). ‘Learning Difficulties’, the Social Model of Disability and Impairment: challenging epistemologies. Disability & Society , Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 207–231. Guernsey, K., Nicoli, M. and Ninio, A. (2006). Making Inclusion Operational: Legal and Institutional Resources for World Bank Staff on the Inclusion of Disability Issues in Investment Projects. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Khasnabis, Chapal and Motsch, Karen Heinicke (2008). The participatory development of international guidelines for CBR. Lepr Rev , 79, 17–29. Mankoff, J., Gillian, R. H. and Kasnitz, D. (2010). Disability Studies as a Source of Critical Inquiry for the Field of Assistive Technology. Orlando, Florida. Marriott, Anna and Gooding, Kate (2008). Social Assistance and Disability in Developing Countries. West Sussex: Sightsavers International. McMahon, A. (2009). IT Can Help Disability Awareness Training. Swindon,: BCS/itcanhelp.org. Mulligan, Diane and Martin, Victoria (2010). Sightsavers, Disability and Social Inclusion. West Sussex: Sightsavers.org. Ne’eman, A. (2009). Disability Politics. The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society , Number 24, Spring 2009, pp. 112-116. OPSI. (2005). Disability Discrimination Act 2005. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from OPSI: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2005/20050013.htm Ortiz, I. (2004). Disability KaR: assessing connections to DFID’s poverty agenda. London: DFID. Peters, S. J. (2003). Inclusive Education: Achieving Education for All by Including Those with Disabilities and Special Education Needs . New York: The Disability Group/The World Bank. Quinn, G., Degener, T., Bruce, A., Kenna, P., Kilkelly, U., Castellino, J. and Quinlivan, S. (2002). The current use and future potential of United Nations human rights instruments in the context of disability. New York and Geneva: United Nations. Riis-Hansen, Trine, Cecilie, Andrew K. Dube and Bill Albert (2005). Has disability been mainstreamed into development cooperation? London: DFID. Thomas, P. (2005). Disability, poverty and the Millennium Development Goals: relevance, challenges and opportunities for DFID. London: DFID. UNESCAP. (2004). Promotion of Non-Handicapping Physical Environments for Disabled Persons. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from UNESCAP: http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/disability/decade/publications/z15009gl/z1500910.htm Unicef. (2004). Promoting Enabling Environments. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from Unicef: http://www.unicef.org/wes/index_environements.html WHO. (2005). Health Impact Assessment. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from World Health Organisation (WHO) website: http://www.who.int/entity/water_sanitation_health/resources/hia/en Wiman, Ronald and Sandhu, Jim (2004). Integrating Appropriate Measures for People with Disabilities in the Infrastructure Sector. National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health. World Bank. (2004). Disability and Developement. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from The World Bank: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALPROTECTION/EXTDISABILITY/0,,contentMDK:20192533~menuPK:282704~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282699,00.html Read More