Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Disability rights movement
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Debates and approaches == A key debate in the disability rights movement is between [[affirmative action]] for persons with disabilities versus fighting for equitable treatment. According to a 1992 polling organization, many fear that integrating people with disabilities into the workplace may affect their company image, or it may result in decreased productivity.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|last=Hergenroeder & Weimann|first=Albert & Constance|title=Health Care Transition: Building A Program for Adolescents and Young Adults with Chronic Illness and Disability|publisher=Springer|year=2018}}</ref> This coincides with the 1992 parliamentary review of the [[Affirmative action|Employment Equity Act]], which stated that employers should look to implement equity without having an official quota system.<ref>{{Cite book|date=2014|title=Achieving Equal Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities through Legislation|url=https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---ifp_skills/documents/publication/wcms_322685.pdf|publisher=International Labour Organization|pages=20β30|isbn=978-92-2-129122-0 }}</ref> This remains an ongoing debate. An additional debate is between institutionalizing persons with disabilities versus supporting them in their homes. In 1963 during [[John F. Kennedy]]'s presidency, he transformed the national view of mental health by boosting funding for [[Community Mental Health Act|community-based programs]] and drafting legislation for mental health care. He also created the President's Panel on Mental Retardation, which created recommendations for new programs that governments can implement on a state level, therefore moving away from "custodial institutions".<ref>{{Cite web|title=John F. Kennedy and People With Intellectual Disabilities|url=https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/john-f-kennedy-and-people-with-intellectual-disabilities|website=Presidential Library and Museum|date=15 December 2021 }}</ref> This shift away from institutionalization has generated a long-lasting stigma against mental health institutions, which is why in politics there is often not enough funding for this concept. According to the US Supreme Court case ''Humphrey v. Cady'', civil commitment laws and eligibility for intervention exist only in the instance when the person is ruled an immediate danger to themself or others.<ref>{{Cite book|date=2019|department = Office of the Chief Medical Officer | title=Civil Commitment and the Mental Health Care Continuum: Historical Trends and Principles for Law and Practice|location = Rockville MD | url=https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/civil-commitment-continuum-of-care.pdf| archive-date = 16 June 2022 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220616225135/https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/civil-commitment-continuum-of-care.pdf |publisher=Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration |pages=8}}</ref> The difficulty of proving "immediate danger" has led to the unexpected outcome that it is harder to commit mentally ill patients to hospital and easier to send them to prison. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, about 15% male inmates and 30% female inmates have some kind of serious mental illness which remains untreated.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Jailing People with Mental Illness|url=https://www.nami.org/Advocacy/Policy-Priorities/Divert-from-Justice-Involvement/Jailing-People-with-Mental-Illness| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210311123903/https://www.nami.org/Advocacy/Policy-Priorities/Divert-from-Justice-Involvement/Jailing-People-with-Mental-Illness | archive-date=11 March 2021 | location=Arlington VA |website=National Alliance on Mental Illness|date=5 October 2018 }}</ref> Another ongoing debate is how to cultivate self-determination for persons with disabilities. The common article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights asserts that "All peoples have the right to self-determination" with free will.<ref>{{Cite journal | url =https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/7890271.pdf | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220701203632/https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/7890271.pdf | archive-date = July 1, 2022| jstor = 20097605|last=Freeman|first=Michael|title=The Right to Self-Determination in International Politics: Six Theories in Search of a Policy| journal = Review of International Studies |publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1999 | volume = 25 | issue = 3 |pages=355β370| doi = 10.1017/S0260210599003551 | s2cid = 145283657 }}</ref> Because this highlights the concept of free and autonomous choice, one argument is that any government interference deters self-determination,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Citizenship and disabled people: A scoping paper prepared for the Disability Rights Commission|url=http://www.enil.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Citizenship-and-disabled-people_A-scoping-paper-prepared-for-the-Disability-Rights-Commission_2005.pdf|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201126020126/http://www.enil.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Citizenship-and-disabled-people_A-scoping-paper-prepared-for-the-Disability-Rights-Commission_2005.pdf | archive-date = 26 November 2020| location = UK|last=Morris|first=Jenny|date=2005}}</ref> thus leaving it to persons with disabilities to seek out any help they need from charities and nonprofit organizations. [[Disability and religion|Charitable organizations]] such as churches believe in helping persons with disabilities with nothing in return. On the other hand, another approach is a participatory, symbiotic relationship, which include methods like professional development and resource provisions. More specifically, one approach is to allow persons with disabilities to self-articulate their needs and generate their own solutions and analyses.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gabovitch |first1=Elaine M. |last2=Dutra |first2=Courtney |last3=Lauer |first3=Emily |title=Healthy People 2020 Roadmap for Massachusetts Children & Youth with ASD/DD: Understanding Needs and Measuring Outcomes |date=2016 |publisher=UMASS Chan Medical School |location=Worcester |page=22 |url=https://shriver.umassmed.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/MA-HP2020-Autism-Roadmap-Report-FINAL_tagged.pdf |access-date=1 July 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Balcazar & Keys|first=Fabricio & Christopher|date=1998|title=Participatory Action Research and People with Disabilities: Principles and Challenges|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239921190 | volume = 12 | issue =2 | eissn = 0828-0827 |journal=Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation|pages=1β10}}</ref> Instead of passive participation, which is participation by being told what to do or what has been done, this approach proposes to allow this group to be self-sufficient and make their own decisions. Barriers to this include defining who is a self-sufficient individual with a disability, circling back to the concept of self-determination.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)