ap888 at SPAMlafn.org
Sun Dec 24 12:46:31 MST 2000
As laid out in the ADA, disabled persons are those whose
impairments *substantially* affect a major life activity. so
persons who have minor impairments are not considered disabled.
I've got a paper in the REAL WORLD MICRO 2000 published by
Dollars and Sense which gives a political economic explanation of disablement.
The Political Economy of Disablement,, REAL WORLD MICRO, 9th
edition, Marc Breslow, Ellen Frank, Cynthia Peters, and the
Dollars & Sense Collective, eds., Cambridge, MA: Economic
Affairs Bureau, Inc., 2001. 94-7.
I stopped using the phrase "people with disabilities" because it
implies that the impairment defines the identity of the
individual, blurs the crucial conceptual distinction between
impairment and disability and avoids the question of causality.
Disablement is something one experiences on top of impairment.
I prefer "disabled persons."
TheRevWilliams at aol.com wrote:
> People with disabilities should not be seen strictly as 'people with
> disabilities.' As showed Devine pointing out that many university professors
> are probaly mild autistics.
> What about everyone else you run into on a daily basis? Then, I find
> myself asking what exactly a 'disability' really is. For, to some extent it
> seems that everyone is suffering from one, no matter how minor.
> There are even things that people would describe as a characteristic
> instead of as a disability. One could make the argument that a low level of
> intelligence, or cynicism is a disability.
> Disability, race, sex, etc. should only be used only as what they are,
> labels, and should only really be used, in my view, when needed. When
> describing someone for example. A label does not give insight to somebody's
> life (except possibly minimally) or who they really are.
> Just some lil thoughts...
author, Los Angeles, CA
Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract
More information about the Marxism