I'm responding to Peter's writings on the social model of disability.

From Singer's book, Practical Ethics,

Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics. Second Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 395.

"When we consider how such people [people with disabilities] are to be treated, there is no argument about whether they are as able as people without disabilities. By definition, they are lacking at least some ability that normal people have. These disabilities will sometimes mean that they should be treated differently from others."

Peter fails as a bioethicist to take into account the changes health, sociology and medicine have undertaken in the last 30 years. Normalization is seen for what it is-a delusional need to control social interactions by people who deem themselves as "normal." "Disability" is a socially created idea promoted by people who need to convince themselves that Others are susceptible to disease and injury, but not them-they are "normal". In Peter's logic, a tree that grows with a bend in the trunk is not a tree.

I wonder why the folks who promote death before [their concept of] disability, do not commit suicide now if they are so afraid of natural aging and life's possibilities.

As the first International (American) student with a physical disability at the University of Melbourne, down the road from Peter's Monash, I have experienced that other's share in Peter's belief that, "these disabilities will sometimes mean that they should be treated differently from others". The ADA makes America a leader in the world by showing that we know how to put our money and laws where are mouths are. Peter could learn a thing or two by building a ramp and getting his hands dirty.

"Some disabled people might say that they make this choice only because society puts so many obstacles in the way of disabled people. They claim that it is social conditions that disable them, not their physical or intellectual condition. This assertion twists the more limited truth, that social conditions make the lives of the disabled much more difficult than they need be, into a sweeping falsehood. To be able to walk, to see, to hear, to be relatively free from pain and discomfort, to communicate effectively- all these are, under virtually any social conditions, genuine benefits."

I don't agree that by acknowledging a long history of social prejudice against people with disabilities that one is automatically denying, for example, that a spinal cord injury has no affect on one's life. Peter's analysis shows that he is not an active thinker who can problem solve. It is not good enough to say, 'having no money is a problem, having money has genuine benefits.' Using Peter's problem-solving techniques, euthanasia for people with no money is a reasonable solution for their suffering. This, using down under-speak, is not on.

-- Julia Trahan, Graduate Student, University of Melbourne (posted 3/6, 9:45 a.m., E.S.T.)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.