Talk:Disability rights movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RE: "The question of whether severely mentally disabled persons should be allowed to have sex is a controversial one. In Germany, this topic is brought to the fore by Nina de Vries who offers paid sexual services to these persons."

Why is this topic covered on a page that relates to the Disability Rights Movement? Can somebody provide references for this topic? Why is this topic controversial? On what grounds does it relate to the article at hand? I will delete this section unless someone can provide a rationale for it by the middle of next week. --Nicholas 13:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Disability - social versus medical model 2 Developmental disabilities 3 Links to wrong John Tyler 4 Disability as a fundamental right?

[edit] Disability - social versus medical model

In the UK (at least) a distinction is made between what is considered to be an outmoded medical model - which sees disability as a condition that that requires a cure to make a disabled person ‘normal’ - and the social model. The social model sets out to make society as a whole aware of, and take steps to remove, the barriers that can socially and economically exclude the 12% of the population who have a disability; an comparable percentage are involved in some caring capacity with a disabled person.

With its emphasis on improving accessibility (not just by physical improvements to buildings or to the external physical environment - but through attitudinal changes in the population currently without a disability) the social model fosters inclusive objectives. Automatically opening doors, for example, benefit those with very young children in buggies or prams, people encumbered with bags, parcels etc - not just wheelchair users or others with mobility problems. Improving access to IT such as screen reading (speech synthesising) and voice recognition software may benefit not just people with visual impairments, but also those with dyslexia and repetitive strain injury - many of whom may not think of themselves as having a disability.

[edit] Developmental disabilities

I believe the basis of this section to be incorrect: it is not true that developmental disability is synonymous with intellectual disability. "Intellect" is usually associated with one's cognitive development, which is only one facet of overall human development.. Not all developmental disorders are cognitive or intellectual in nature. Was the author referring to mental retardation? MR is only one example of a developmental disability. Autism is a developmental disability which is only partially (and not always) intellectually based; it's noted more as a socio-emotional disability (especially the case with higher-functioning Autism and Asperger's). Language-based disabilities including language delays are often developmental in nature but do not affect a person's IQ score (which is how intelligence is generally assessed). Developmental disabilities can include motor impairments, too. To what was the author referring when s/he wrote this piece and where was his/her information coming from?

[edit] Links to wrong John Tyler

The link in the personalities section goes to John Tyler, Jr. (1790–1862) who was the tenth President of the United States. I am new to wiki, and I do not know how to fix the link. QiamiCaang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.135.225 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is currently no article for John Tyler thd disability rights advocate. The name has tehrefor ebene delinked. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disability as a fundamental right?

Is there a fundamental constitutional or basic human right to be or remain disabled? That is let's assume some scientific team develops a pill or syringe that causes people's amputated limbs to regrow safely and perfectly. The government makes the treatment available to anybody crippled for free. Does the gov't have the authority to forcibly compel all medically suitable crippled persons to receive the treatment - or do maimed people have the right to refuse, remain un-whole and continue to live as is, potentially on social warfare support?

Considering christian techings it seems that preserving or regaining one's phyisical health and wholeness is a heavenly commandment (see the moral ban on suicide), therefore most white countries would probably legislate the pro-govt way in this regard. Also, where mandatory military service (conscription) still exists, gov't could force people to regain able-bodiedness so they can serve in armed forces and potentially die for the motherland.

In fact there was already an inverted case in Germany, where a mentally disturbed person wanted the court of law to compel doctors to chop his perfectly healthy legs off, because he felt the legs gave him bad karma and poor vibrations.

This issue could be discussed in the article. 91.83.12.110 (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I think this is a very important basic issue. Owing to exponential advances in cyber-mechatronics and microbiology (genetics), either robotic or cloned near-perfect limb replacements will be widely available in a few decades and questions of mandatory whole-ness will appear. I admit this is not a practical issue right now, but could be a source of future contention. 91.83.12.110 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)