Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:43 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
What other irreversible physical condition do large swaths of the population believe can be cured woth willpower? Cancer? Type 1 diabetes? Scizophrenia? Amputation?? It is a remarkable feature of the human mind, in my opi ion.
Cancer (which after so many people have battled with it you'd think it's some sort of dragon rather than a crab) and depression are two pretty big ones.

When she was born, the parents of one of my SiLs were told she might never walk (at the very least I know she's got scoliosis of doom); the father went further into the depression he already had, the mother rolled up her sleeves and carried the whole family. Talking to SiL about the power of prayer or about alternative medicine will probably only get you an extremely cold shoulder; her mother is old enough to have ditched unnecessary politeness long ago and turns from a nice little grandma into someone who'd scare a Brothers Grimm witch out of her underclothes.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #52  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:44 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I disagree. I doubt many folk would equate "reasonable fitness" w/ pressing 200# overhead. You can make assumptions based on the human physique. There is a reason stair risers and treads have standard dimensions.

Able to do what? function in society w/o requiring special accommodations.

And since I brought up vets, I ought to mention my favorite abused malady - PTSD!
"Function in society" doesn't mean even close to the same thing for every person. Your function and my function might be just fine for each of us but not very similar. Every person functioning exactly the same as the next person has never been a requirement or even a reasonable expectation. Clearly, FDR was disabled. Do we say that he wasn't functioning? And clearly, Charles Manson was physically NOT disabled. Do we say that he WAS functioning?
  #53  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:49 PM
monstro monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 19,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
I'm not interested in the people who dishonestly try to "spin" problems to sound like "blessings". They're trying to console themselves by playing pretend.
I'm not interested in these people either, which is why I didn't mention them. There are some people who honestly and sincerely believe their conditions confer "blessings", but they are honestly and sincerely oblivious to the problems caused by their conditions because they are sheltered from them.

Quote:
If my needs inconvenience others, but when my needs are met I'm perfectly fine, am I disabled?
Depends on how much inconvenience your needs are causing. Like, if you're so allergic to peanuts that a couple of aerosol particles can kill you, then you're disabled because you require a huge accommodation to live a "typical" life. But if you just break out into hives when you eat something with a lot of peanuts, then no. Your condition doesn't require the people around you to have an extra amount of compassion and understanding and it doesn't require any special accommodation.

Quote:
I recognize that personally I AM disabled, though exactly to what degree is a confusing analysis. But I don't believe that having inconvenient needs qualifies in any form as a disability.

To me, if someone who I interact with on a regular basis tells me they've got a condition, I will assume the person wants me to accommodate them somehow. Maybe they want me to be ready to step in for them or provide assistance if their condition temporarily impairs them. Or maybe they simply want me to not judge them harshly when their condition manifests itself unexpectedly and makes things awkward. So if someone can't function well for long stretches without cluing anyone in on what they're dealing with, then I think it makes sense to call them disabled.
  #54  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:50 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Yeah - or it could be what organization made the determination.

Another factor would whether the diagnosing doctor is a specialist as opposed to a GP? A treater?

I see a lot of vets who are irate that their VA rating does not entitle them to an additional Soc Sec payment (no set off between the 2 programs. In fact, 100% disabled vets are able to work.)

And so many doctors seem to think their opinion that, "Mr X is disabled." means ANYTHING. No mention of any symptoms or functional limitations? No discussion of how those affect one within the workplace?

I think it ridiculous that a deaf person would bridle at the word "disabled" - especially if they wish any portion of society to make them any accommodation. But a real poser is trying to define what is "able." How broad will we draw that before someone is "disabled"? Some people are athletic/others are klutzes. Some folk are nearsighted. Some are not too bright. And others are lazy assholes. And what makes a particular accommodation "reasonable." From whose viewpoint.

It does not surprise me that people have different opinions. I'm not sure how far society can go to accommodate every person's difference. At what point do you just say someone has to suck it up and figure out how to deal in a society that serves the vast majority of people?
That is the crux of the issue and the still-unresolved question of my OP. It's a surprisingly difficult question to answer, even knowing it would be a challenging task at the outset. Oh, and I remembered something a bit clarifying about the diagnosis of my disability. It was a two-stage event. First was the tentative diagnosis in the hospital where my emergency aortic surgery was performed. This was rather inconclusive, as the ischemic nature of my injury left open a wide array of ultimate possible outcomes. The second, and more definitive diagnosis came from the spinal cord injury rehabilitation medical team that I was under the care of after I was transported from ICU in the first hospital to rehab in the second. It was a solid, credible diagnosis made by experts in the field of spinal cord injury as well as the peripheral nervous system and brain function as well as traumatic brain injury.
  #55  
Old 09-18-2018, 07:03 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
"Function in society" doesn't mean even close to the same thing for every person. Your function and my function might be just fine for each of us but not very similar. Every person functioning exactly the same as the next person has never been a requirement or even a reasonable expectation. Clearly, FDR was disabled. Do we say that he wasn't functioning? And clearly, Charles Manson was physically NOT disabled. Do we say that he WAS functioning?
Yes, FDR was disabled. Thats why he required accomodations such as a wheelchair and untold other unseen assistive elements to facilitate his ability to function in an reasonabe manner. And just because Charles Manson was not physically disabled, does that somehow erase the almost certainty that he was a psychopath? Or to use proper termininology, afflicted with Antisocial Personality Disorder, of the psychopathic subset? Both men were clearly disabled. One man found accomodations which allowed him reasonable ability to function and one man did not. The difference was in outcome, not in outset.
  #56  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:12 PM
monstro monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 19,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Yes, FDR was disabled. Thats why he required accomodations such as a wheelchair and untold other unseen assistive elements to facilitate his ability to function in an reasonabe manner. And just because Charles Manson was not physically disabled, does that somehow erase the almost certainty that he was a psychopath? Or to use proper termininology, afflicted with Antisocial Personality Disorder, of the psychopathic subset? Both men were clearly disabled. One man found accomodations which allowed him reasonable ability to function and one man did not. The difference was in outcome, not in outset.
I think DavidwithanR has a point though with wondering what "function in society" means.

Someone with relatively low intelligence can get a job assembling hamburgers at McDonalds and function pretty well in that job, with little accommodation. And maybe they can scratch out a comfortable existence on minimum wage if they are fortunate enough to live somewhere with ample affordable housing and a low cost of living.

But what if a person doesn't have this? If you can't find a place to live that you can afford in your society and you can't afford to move to another society, then how can it be said that you are "functioning in society"? Functioning on the job <> functioning at life. And the old stand-by advice to "go back to school and get better skills" isn't such great advice for someone who doesn't learn easily.

So that's why I think the degree to which someone is impaired depends on the obstacles that are found in the society someone finds themselves in. Not to be all leftwing radical, but if all Americans were guaranteed food, housing and health care, then it would be relatively easy to "function in society" because the basics would be covered. But when even fully able-bodied/minded people are struggling with the basics, it makes perfect sense for someone who feels disadvantaged to seek special protection and accommodation.
  #57  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:02 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,170
At some point, there needs to some some level of educated but essentially arbitrary cut-off separating disability from low ability. Otherwise what sort of ineffective and potentially ruinous quagmire would society be in? Life isn't fair. Disabilities have to have, to some extent medically arbitrary points of cut-off, like why should those with a functional IQ of 75 be charged with violent crimes but those with scores of just five points lower not be held criminally liable for their actions (this was most recently in court in 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia). Does this make logical sense or seem fair or take all potentially relevant factors into consideration? It sure doesnt appear to, at least to my layman's eye. It seemed to rest on a somewhat outdated, and fiercely debated, dividing line that separated "mental retardation" from regular old low intelligence.
  #58  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:39 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,646
No, life isn't fair. But with some level of effort, life can be made a hell of a lot closer to fair.

In the bad old days, a person who needed a wheelchair to get around, got basically nothing from society. Stairs everywhere, can't climb the stairs it's your problem. It was "just not practical" to accommodate wheelchairs AT ALL, EVER.

We got smarter. A ramp is not that hard to add. A door that can be opened in a better way is not that hard to design. And so on.

Life will never be perfectly fair, but IMO it's foolish to be against trying to improve the situation for as many people as possible.
  #59  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:43 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
No, life isn't fair. But with some level of effort, life can be made a hell of a lot closer to fair.

In the bad old days, a person who needed a wheelchair to get around, got basically nothing from society. Stairs everywhere, can't climb the stairs it's your problem. It was "just not practical" to accommodate wheelchairs AT ALL, EVER.

We got smarter. A ramp is not that hard to add. A door that can be opened in a better way is not that hard to design. And so on.

Life will never be perfectly fair, but IMO it's foolish to be against trying to improve the situation for as many people as possible.
I'm sorry but who has suggesting anything of that sort?

ETA: certainly "improving the lives of everyone" or as many as possible does not mean conferring medical/legal statuses of disability and government protections/accomodations to as many people as possible, does it? Would that really be of a net benefit to society? Would it even be feasible?

Last edited by Ambivalid; 09-18-2018 at 09:46 PM.
  #60  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:55 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,038
I think DavidwithanR is trying to find the line that was raised earlier about who we accommodate and who we don't. Your post mentions that in many ways now the line is very arbitrary (70 is retarded, 75 isn't, for example). I think it's a balancing act for society. Ideally, we do the most good for the most people.
  #61  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:20 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
I think DavidwithanR is trying to find the line that was raised earlier about who we accommodate and who we don't. Your post mentions that in many ways now the line is very arbitrary (70 is retarded, 75 isn't, for example). I think it's a balancing act for society. Ideally, we do the most good for the most people.
Well yes, that was what I was trying to get as well. In particular with saying we ultimately must make educated but arbitrary decisions at some point in order to delineate the medical, legal and in turn, the social boundaries of who we collectively assist with overcoming physical, mental and societal obstacles that prevent reasonable functioning in life.

The line has to be determined, however, using factors unrelated to anything medical or health related. Things like financial burdens, over governments, local, state and federal. As well as businesses and public buildings, social services, everything. A good example of this is the mandated accessibility of businesses, restaurants, etc. that are open to the public. There are exceptions to this clause. Establishments that can adequately show that renovating their existing buildings to become ADA compliant would create "an undue financial burden" on the business that was significantly outside the scope of the complying needs.

I still don't understand who or what he was referring to (DavidwithanR, that is), when he said he thinks it's foolish to not try and improve the life situations of as many people as possible. Can you shed any light on that?
  #62  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:51 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,038
Nope. I've re-read that several times and I'm not seeing it.
  #63  
Old 09-19-2018, 06:43 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,450
That doesn't make something a disability, Andreah. Having two eyes is normal and the only ways it changes are not improvements.
  #64  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:38 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
"Function in society" doesn't mean even close to the same thing for every person. Your function and my function might be just fine for each of us but not very similar. Every person functioning exactly the same as the next person has never been a requirement or even a reasonable expectation. Clearly, FDR was disabled. Do we say that he wasn't functioning? And clearly, Charles Manson was physically NOT disabled. Do we say that he WAS functioning?
Sorry, I still disagree, but am not too interested in trying to persuade you otherwise.

If we wanted, we could identify a basket of physical, mental, emotional characteristics that we expect of a typical human adult. Of course, the definitions would be subject to debate. But what can 90-95% of adults between the ages of 20-70 do without too much difficulty? Walk 1/2 mile? Lift 20# from knees to chest level? Read a certain number of words in a certain size font? Stand in a line at a store for 5 minutes without freaking out? Open a jar requiring certain force? Remember 3 words 5 minutes later? Follow simple instructions? Recover from the death of a loved one after a reasonable period of grieving? The list could go on and on.

Now if someone fell short on one of more areas, we could say they had a disability/impairment in that area. And we could debate the extent/cost to which we felt society ought to go to accommodate that shortcoming.

This is exactly what governments and manufacturers do, when they design doors that require a certain amount of pressure to open. Or various packaging. Or signs. Or imposing various legal duties. ...

I don't find your examples of FDR and Manson terribly useful. Sure, FDR had a mobility impairment. That was more than overcome by simple use of a wheelchair, as well as the personal assistance his position and wealth were able to buy. But more importantly, he was tremendously gifted in various mental and character attributes, such that as an entire person, he more than made up for the mobility deficit.

Manson, well, he functioned extremely well at manipulating people and achieving certain results. Gifted in persuasion, perhaps. And he was physically intact AFAIK. But I imagine many/most would suggest some mental/emotional flaw contributed towards his pursuing undesirable goals.

What do we do WRT an individual who has a significant physical or emotional impairment, but is NOT terribly gifted in some other area? How about someone who is just not terribly bright? Say an IQ in the 80s. What role do they play in today's economy - whereas in the past they could have led a nice middleclass life with a factory job. Then multiply it when they make some bad choices - overeat or drink. Commit a crime or 2. Tweak their back. ... How are they able to plan/save for the future? Make intelligent consumer choices? Master increasingly complex electronic devices? They are well within the range of "average" humans, but are increasingly sidelined from meaningful participation?

So I see a major distinction between what I'll call - for lack of better word - the "gifted disabled." Someone who is bright w/ good morals and work ethic, who has a major shortcoming in one area - from an injury, illness, or congenitally. Like the OP, I suspect. With certain accommodations, that individual can play a major contributing role in society. How far does society go for THAT person? As opposed to someone who is just kinda a sad sack? Fatter and weaker than normal. Dumber than normal. Lazier than normal...
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #65  
Old 09-19-2018, 08:41 AM
Textual Innuendo Textual Innuendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
How far does society go for THAT person?
I'm seeing a lot of "what should society do" in this thread, but aren't sure that's a useful level of measurement. Society is made up of individuals with widely varying empathies, expectations, and proclivities, and you can't really expect it to DO anything in any given direction.

I've been sort of translating that in my head to "what should the government do," as that's the only way things like ADA compliance and other accommodations have been promulgated and enforced thus far. But that is a VERY different question than the stated one of what society should do.

And in that case, your question is simple as stated. The government goes as far as vetting your disability through Social Security and if vetted, granting certain financial accommodations (SSD) and medical services (Medicaid).

So a process exists with some hurdles and and some required medical diagnoses, and this government process is currently the splitter between who qualifies and who doesn't. And all questions around who qualifies and not are essentially asking where in this process is the line drawn.

For the sad sacks, they're probably not going to get anything (although it's possible if they spent years doctor shopping and appealing, they could eventually get on SSD and maybe Medicaid with sufficiently flexible doctors and sufficiently shitty lives). For the "gifted disabled," they'll be disqualified for disability payments and Medicaid if they work a real job or have more than $2k in assets, but they will have the advantage of government-mandated ADA compliance.

Is your question then, what should the government do beyond those things? As in, should we be drawing that line in a different place in the current government process?

Or are you asking should the government accommodate sad sacks right off the bat? Because it seems like that turns into a basic income and single-payer healthcare pretty quick, if anyone can portray that their life sucks and get SSD and Medicaid for it. And then we're back to Monstro's point about disabilities being much less of a burden if we had guaranteed housing, medical care, and income, it's just sort of back-dooring into it.

But in a society where those things are guaranteed, the SSD and Medicaid people still aren't going to be leading enviable lives, and will still likely be considered "disabled" by most people, due to the enforced joblessness and penury the current system requires to qualify for those two things.

Last edited by Textual Innuendo; 09-19-2018 at 08:42 AM.
  #66  
Old 09-19-2018, 09:31 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textual Innuendo View Post
I'm seeing a lot of "what should society do" in this thread, but aren't sure that's a useful level of measurement. Society is made up of individuals with widely varying empathies, expectations, and proclivities, and you can't really expect it to DO anything in any given direction.

I've been sort of translating that in my head to "what should the government do," as that's the only way things like ADA compliance and other accommodations have been promulgated and enforced thus far. But that is a VERY different question than the stated one of what society should do. ...
I think it is a little more complex. The government does some specific things, like awarding disability benefits. Or placing curb cuts. In other respects, the government requires private entities to do things, such as ADA compliance, and reasonable work accommodations. Some employers go over and above what is required. And we can discuss what private individuals ought to do. How accepting ought the average individual be with respect to others' differences?

I don't suggest any answers, just pointing out some of what I see as the relevant aspects to a complex problem.

As with most complex problems, we see precious little meaningful comprehensive efforts to address these issues, with little discussion of the costs involved and intended goals. Take, for example, special education. How much $ ought be dedicated to achieve how little potential benefit? Parents and advocates would likely draw the line differently than others might. Who is right?
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #67  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:27 PM
Zeke N. Destroi Zeke N. Destroi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not A Real Country
Posts: 1,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I think part of the problem is using autism itself as the poster child for this convo. Because of its nature as a spectrum disorder
Isn't everything a spectrum disorder? Everything differs in degree doesn't it?
__________________
Zeke
  #68  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:48 PM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,836
I think anyone who has a Difference that they themselves don't deem to be negative has to be granted a lot of leeway (if not quite absolute defining authority) to say that no it isn't a disability (or a disease, etc).

At that point the burden is clearly on anyone who insists on referring to it as a negative or undesirable variation from the normative (disease, disability) to show that it is indeed always an unfortunate and disabling condition. If it's debatable or assessments appear to be ambivalent, the nod goes towards the right to have it established as a difference or variation that isn't necessarily disabling.
  #69  
Old 09-21-2018, 02:07 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
However, in re the patient/person being the best judge of their potential disability, while I think that is true for the majority of cases, do you think it is always so? Does not desiring the aspects of life that are used to construct the criterion through which disability is understood and defined negate the disability? Or does it suggest a disability in it's own right? I'm by no means asserting this, just posing the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
I think anyone who has a Difference that they themselves don't deem to be negative has to be granted a lot of leeway (if not quite absolute defining authority) to say that no it isn't a disability (or a disease, etc).

At that point the burden is clearly on anyone who insists on referring to it as a negative or undesirable variation from the normative (disease, disability) to show that it is indeed always an unfortunate and disabling condition. If it's debatable or assessments appear to be ambivalent, the nod goes towards the right to have it established as a difference or variation that isn't necessarily disabling.
This topic was brought up earlier in the thread, so I've included my original response above your post. It seems like we're getting into very murky water when applying this reasoning to certain types of disability, particularly (but not limited to) mental handicaps.

I have a suspicion that some may be motivated to claim "no disability" despite clearly fitting the established criteria due to the unfortunate way much of society interprets "disability" to mean "lessening" of the person somehow. No one wants to be stigmatized or ostracized. But don't you think it's possible for an individual to identify as "able", thus eschewing any accomodations or assistance and have their lives be drastically, categorically worsened as a result?

Last edited by Ambivalid; 09-21-2018 at 02:10 PM.
  #70  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:07 AM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,836
I do think that's possible, and that sort of thing is why I wrote "granted a lot of leeway" instead of "they are always right". But let's suppose an individual identifies as "able", as a consequence incurring outcomes that all of us discussing it in the local tavern consider to be categorically worsened... but the individual in question does not feel such to be the case. Then I give the nod to the individual.

Having a psychiatric diagnosis is an ideal example. The proverbial people in the local tavern may continue to believe "yeah but that's because your impairments keep you from perceiving that you're impaired" but I think if the individual in question says otherwise and maintains that the only social concession they want is for people to stop trying to "help", that they actively like their Difference, their assessment is the one that counts.
  #71  
Old 09-22-2018, 03:41 AM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
I do think that's possible, and that sort of thing is why I wrote "granted a lot of leeway" instead of "they are always right". But let's suppose an individual identifies as "able", as a consequence incurring outcomes that all of us discussing it in the local tavern consider to be categorically worsened... but the individual in question does not feel such to be the case. Then I give the nod to the individual.

Having a psychiatric diagnosis is an ideal example. The proverbial people in the local tavern may continue to believe "yeah but that's because your impairments keep you from perceiving that you're impaired" but I think if the individual in question says otherwise and maintains that the only social concession they want is for people to stop trying to "help", that they actively like their Difference, their assessment is the one that counts.
Ok. Could you give me an example of when this leeway should be curtailed? Whether for the interests of the person themselves, the interests of society or a combination of both? To me this sounds like a reframing of the original question: where do we draw the line? What separates a "uniquely equipped" but nonetheless functional individual from a delusional individual who believes they are functional?
  #72  
Old 09-23-2018, 11:49 AM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,836
I've been giving myself some time to think about that.

An objective answer probably doesn't exist. Continuing with my "ideal example", I suppose the ideal outcome is where the local tavern people agree to accept that the individual with the psych diagnosis likes being who and how they are, but they retain the viewpoint that if their own minds were similarly affected they would find it disabling and unfortunate.

To toss out another example, a deaf person, one of the ones who participates in deaf culture and is marrying a deaf person and they want to be sure to have a deaf child if that's possible and don't consider it a deficit or a disability to be deaf. I think I could accept that person's identity including their perception of their deafness on their terms, while still retaining the notion that it would be damned unfortunate for me if I were to become deaf.

I guess the next logical question is "where does that leave you with regards to your attitude towards those conditions generically"? That's also tricky. As a genuine representative of the first ideal example, I'd want people in general to hold in their heads at least the possibility that someone with a psych diagnosis is just "differently minded" and not necessarily suffering from it as an unfortunate condition. But it's probably not fair or reasonable to ask or expect that they default to that whenever they think of a generic unknown person having a psychiatric diagnosis. At least not unless a far more massive portion of the psychiatrically diagnosed population comes forward and says "We're schizzy and we're proud".

The echo of gay rights is intentional. It's an excellent third example because we can look back in time to when it was definitely seen as a deficit or unfortunate condition or corruption or what-have-you, and through a time stretching across several decades in which people began to entertain the possibility of someone liking being that way and not wanting it any different, and finally to a time where that's many people's default assumption, that it's a difference but not an unfortunate one.

I don't think there's any useful litmus test for which differences "should" be regarded in that same way and which ones not.
  #73  
Old 09-23-2018, 01:10 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,898
It's not my place to determine whether someone else is disabled, as far as I'm concerned. In the vast majority of cases, they can decide. The only time it's relevant beyond that is when they need accommodations or could be treated.

The latter is fairly easy. Barring actual harm to others, you cannot force someone into a treatment. Accommodations, on the other hand, depends largely on priorities based on what society can afford.

What it doesn't depend on is any form of worth: whether the people are worthy of receiving accommodations. All are worthy--it's just about prioritizing to help the most people with what you have, and possibly helping them work to increase supply. Though you also need to consider whether they want them--and whether it would harm others if they don't get them even if they don't want them.

Outside of that, it's none of my business. It's helping someone with the door, just more so. And, in that situation, you can say no, and I'm required to respect that. Same if you said you didn't need any help ever, or if you just don't want to be called "disabled."

To the OP: you're exactly as disabled as you say you are. Not based on some woo of being able to remove your disability through willpower, but because you know better than anyone else what you can and cannot do, and what help you need or want.
  #74  
Old 09-23-2018, 01:22 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
But don't you think it's possible for an individual to identify as "able", thus eschewing any accomodations or assistance and have their lives be drastically, categorically worsened as a result?
Not only theirs, but those of their family. Evidently this varies by location etc. etc., but for example I know several families who found themselves in situations such as not being able to get either Home Assistance or to move Grandma into assisted living because the person in question refused to accept the "Assisted" label. One pair of Grandpas that comes to mind wanted to move into the local Old Folks' Home, but he needed to be qualified as Assisted and refused to; she was in better health, for starters her hearing was decent and she didn't refuse to wear her glasses because "I've always had perfect eyesight!". Many locations also have the possibility of having temporary assistance for temporary disabilities: one of my coworkers spent his teen years wearing one cast when it wasn't two, and he has vowed that if his son turns out the same way they bloody well are going to accept any help the government wants to offer.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 09-23-2018 at 01:27 PM.
  #75  
Old 09-23-2018, 02:26 PM
BeenJammin BeenJammin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 411
It's Complicated

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
One complicating factor is the difference between mental conditions and physical conditions.
Both of which may or may not contain elements of all 3 - impairment, disability and/or handicap: Terminology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke N. Destroi View Post
Isn't everything a spectrum disorder?
Maybe we'll know someday after they get reality 100% digitized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
To the OP: you're exactly as disabled as you say you are.
More specifically, you are exactly as disabled as as the administration of the service, employer, business or government agency you expect to receive accommodation or support from says you are. Whether or not you agree is no reflection on your disability - just a general assessment of society's currently in-vogue opinion of your status.
  #76  
Old 09-23-2018, 11:46 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke N. Destroi View Post
Isn't everything a spectrum disorder? Everything differs in degree doesn't it?
On one end of the Autism spectrum, the person can pass for neurotypical, on the other end are non-communicative vegetables. Where do you draw the line? Able to hold an accommodating job and live in a group home? Able to live independently and manage living employment on their own? Start a software company and become a billionaire (Bill Gates is the Asperger's poster child although he has never come out and addressed this. However, he's got the rocking and other mannerisms consistent with ASD, and if you've ever interacted with him in person IMHO it would be difficult to describe him as neurotypical). Somewhere on the spectrum it's a disability.

(And please don't ever let me in real life interact with one of the "Congratulations, you're so fortunate to have a child on the autism spectrum, such a wonderful, eye opening opportunity." people that I have seen on TV)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017