Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

From my example, what social/attitudinal or systemic barriers are there? Environmental could be debated, but that's outside the social model.
Given how many PWDs who have post secondary educations who are not attached to the labour force compared to people who do not have disabilities - I would say, mostly. Mostly, because employers don't design their workplaces and their policies and culture with physical and mental differences in mind.

I don't think it is because PWDs are lazy or have nothing to contribute.

I really struggle with this part of your argument. This is a real example of you looking at the big picture through your narrow, though important, experience.

There is a massive population of people with severe disabilities who live rich and meaningful lives and will never be employable because of their impairments, not because of limits and barriers in society. No amount of changes in the work environment, nor changes in employment policies, will make people like my son employable and people like my son constitute a significant percentage of the population of people with disabilities you keep referring to. Your experience does not capture theirs and to paint their picture with your paintbrush does a disservice to their stories and experiences of life with disability.
 
I agree with DaisyJane putting such a narrow lens on an issue does not help anyone. It is an example of that metaphor that says if you have a hammer every problem is a nail.
 
I really struggle with this part of your argument. This is a real example of you looking at the big picture through your narrow, though important, experience.

There is a massive population of people with severe disabilities who live rich and meaningful lives and will never be employable because of their impairments, not because of limits and barriers in society. No amount of changes in the work environment, not changes in employment policies, will make people like my son employable and people like my constitute a significant percentage of the population of people with disabilities you keep referring to. Your experience does not capture theirs and to paint their picture with your paintbrush does a disservice to their stories and experiences of life with disability.

What just came to mind is factory like "make work" projects for people with developmental disabilities - and how that underestimated them in many ways because of standard workplace expectations. On the other hand, gave them something meaningful for themselves to do, albeit, isolated from the rest of society rather than included.

Or the day program I did a practicum at (ironically I didn't get hired because although there were many things I could do to help the clients I couldn't drive - even though the other staff could and there were always at least two of us - it was policy - and I couldn't do lifting/ transfering/ toileting). There were people with Down's Syndrome, Austism, severe CP off the top of my head. There was one young woman who was pretty much dumped there by her family, they didn't know what to do with her after high-school. She had severe CP but she was bright. She had social and cultural interests. She always wanted to hang out with the staff but they always shuffled her back to the arts and crafts or whatever activities were happening that were too childish for her. Somewhere along the way, her family, the school system, I am not sure...but society failed her. I felt so bad for her because she was capable of doing more than going there to be essentially babysat. There was another young man with Down's who only came to the program part time because he got a job at a fast food restaurant. His family supported him to do that.

And I know work isn't the only measure of a rich and meaningful life - but if one is poor and without adequate supports that makes richness and meaning harder.
 
Last edited:
What year is this? I feel like we are talking about 1973........

The practicum was in 2005. And that day program still exists. And it wasn't long ago - there was a make work type company in Burnaby I think - can't remember the name of it. Similar to what Goodwill used to do. When I worked in employment counselling we had some clients with developmental disabilities who had worked there who wanted jobs, but we referred them to another program that focused on customized employment - only because our program wasn't mandated for what they needed.
 
Last edited:
What just came to mind is factory like "make work" projects for people with developmental disabilities - and how that underestimated them in many ways because of standard workplace expectations. On the other hand, gave them something meaningful for themselves to do, albeit, isolated from the rest of society rather than included.

Or the day program I did a practicum at (ironically I didn't get hired because although there were many things I could do to help the clients I couldn't drive - even though the other staff could and there were always at least two of us - it was policy - and I couldn't do lifting/ transfering/ toileting). There were people with Down's Syndrome, Austism, severe CP off the top of my head. There was one young woman who was pretty much dumped there by her family, they didn't know what to do with her after high-school. She had severe CP but she was bright. She had social and cultural interests. She always wanted to hang out with the staff but they always shuffled her back to the arts and crafts or whatever activities were happening that were too childish for her. Somewhere along the way, her family, the school system, I am not sure...but society failed her. I felt so bad for her because she was capable of doing more than going there to be essentially babysat. There was another young man with Down's who only came to the program part time because he got a job at a fast food restaurant. His family supported him to do that.

And I know work isn't the only measure of a rich and meaningful life - but if one is poor and without adequate supports that makes richness and meaning harder.

What does this have to do with my point. I agree these situations are appalling and should be addressed. I agree society often fails people with disabilities. I agree that there are many who are underemployed and that is a tragedy (and not isolated to people with disabilities). Once again, no argument. But, the people with severe disabilities who I am describing would likely not be able to participate in such programs. This is not an issue of them being underemployed because of societal discrimination. It is that their impairments prevent involvement in such activities. Period. Again. you are basing the overall argument on your particular experience(s).

Also, I would suggest you avoid such derogatory terms such as "dumped". My guess is that you have no idea what the circumstances of these parents were and to suggest they dumped their daughter in the program does a disservice to the complex situation regarding care and needs for adults with severe disabilities that probably existed.
 
What does this have to do with my point. I agree these situations are appalling and should be addressed. I agree society often fails people with disabilities. I agree that there are many who are underemployed and that is a tragedy (and not isolated to people with disabilities). Once again, no argument. But, the people with severe disabilities who I am describing would likely not be able to participate in such programs. This is not an issue of them being underemployed because of societal discrimination. It is that their impairments prevent involvement in such activities. Period. Again. you are basing the overall argument on your particular experience(s).

Also, I would suggest you avoid such derogatory terms such as "dumped". My guess is that you have no idea what the circumstances of these parents were and to suggest they dumped their daughter in the program does a disservice to the complex situation regarding care and needs for adults with severe disabilities that probably existed.
I suspect actually that she was dumped there by her family - as were a few other clients who came from families who came from cultures that taught them to be ashamed to have kids with disabilities. The staff of the program told me this - they had backgrounds in recreation not SW.. I think what is derrogatory is that still happens and still nobody did anything about it. I might have tried to had I been hired there.
 
What does this have to do with my point. I agree these situations are appalling and should be addressed. I agree society often fails people with disabilities. I agree that there are many who are underemployed and that is a tragedy (and not isolated to people with disabilities). Once again, no argument. But, the people with severe disabilities who I am describing would likely not be able to participate in such programs. This is not an issue of them being underemployed because of societal discrimination. It is that their impairments prevent involvement in such activities. Period. Again. you are basing the overall argument on your particular experience(s).

Also, I would suggest you avoid such derogatory terms such as "dumped". My guess is that you have no idea what the circumstances of these parents were and to suggest they dumped their daughter in the program does a disservice to the complex situation regarding care and needs for adults with severe disabilities that probably existed.
Not all people who can't work have access to what supports they need to have rich and fulfilling lives. I am not arguing that they can't - they often don't and that's society's responsibility. It is discrimination, too. I am arguing that people even with mild to moderately severe impairments are grossly underrepresented in the labour force - which is disabling. And one way or another a large majority of PWDs are relegated to poverty which further limits inclusion.
 
PWDs who can work are disproportionately unemployed or underemployed compared to people without disabilities. So even if you are an ethnic minority or LGBT or female or youth - if you are not a person with a disability - your chances of getting a job and one that pays the bills and for a decent quality of life are still better. @DaisyJane let's look at discrimination proportional to actual effects on different groups.
 
I suspect actually that she was dumped there by her family - as were a few other clients who came from families who came from cultures that taught them to be ashamed to have kids with disabilities. The staff of the program told me this - they had backgrounds in recreation not SW.. I think what is derrogatory is that still happens and still nobody did anything about it. I might have tried to had I been hired there.
Kind of like The Queen’s Hidden Cousins,
Former ward sister Dot Penfold, now retired from nursing, also has fond memories. ‘They were no problem to look after but they were mischievous, like naughty children. Katherine was a scallywag. You could scream at her and she’d turn a deaf ear.’

article-2059831-0EB905A800000578-653_233x534.jpg

Katherine, 85, is still alive and is believed to be living in a care home in Surrey

Nerissa was born in 1919, and Katherine in 1926. Their father was John Bowes-Lyon, one of the Queen Mother’s older brothers and a son of the Earl of Strathmore. John died in 1930 and was survived, until
1966, by the girls’ mother, Fenella.

The sisters were unfortunate to have been born in an era when mental disability was seen as a threat to society and linked to promiscuity, feckless breeding and petty crime, the characteristics of the underclass; associations encouraged by popular belief in the science of eugenics, soon to be embraced by the Nazis.

‘So the belief was if you had a child with a learning disability, there was something in your family that was suspect and wrong,’ explains Jan Walmsley, the Open University’s professor in the history of learning disabilities.

For the Bowes-Lyons, this was a stigma that could threaten their social standing and taint the marital prospects of their other children. (Nerissa and Katherine’s beautiful and healthy sister Anne became a princess of Denmark by her second marriage; by her first marriage, she was Viscountess Anson and mother of the society photographer, the late Lord Lichfield.)

The imposing Royal Earlswood was the country’s first purpose-built asylum for people with learning disabilities. Nerissa and Katherine were 15 and 22 respectively when they were admitted. Nerissa’s medical records categorise her as ‘imbecile’. ‘She makes unintelligible noises all the time,’ stated a doctor. ‘Very affectionate… can say a few babyish words.’

Judy Wilkinson, 67, from Godalming, Surrey, recalls her apprehension when visiting the Royal Earlswood as a young girl in the 1950s, when her elder sister Nicola, who was brain-damaged at birth, was consigned there. ‘I’d get that gripping feeling of dread,’ Judy explains, and she remembers feeling puzzled that her sister was always wearing the same green coat, which never seemed to wear out.

Now she realises that the inmates wore their own clothes only if they had visitors. But for Nerissa and Katherine, there were few if any visitors. ‘I never saw anybody come,’ says Dot Penfold. ‘The impression I had was that they’d been forgotten.’

From the late 1960s, a wave of scandals exposed conditions in institutions that were severely understaffed and overcrowded. The Royal Earlswood was closed in 1997; at least one former nurse has alleged patients were abused. The grandiose building has since been converted into luxury apartments, while Katherine is believed to be living in a care home in Surrey. Her relationship with her family remains unchanged.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ng-documentary-reveals-all.html#ixzz3Susmdl1c
 
Kind of like The Queen’s Hidden Cousins,
Former ward sister Dot Penfold, now retired from nursing, also has fond memories. ‘They were no problem to look after but they were mischievous, like naughty children. Katherine was a scallywag. You could scream at her and she’d turn a deaf ear.’

article-2059831-0EB905A800000578-653_233x534.jpg

Katherine, 85, is still alive and is believed to be living in a care home in Surrey

Nerissa was born in 1919, and Katherine in 1926. Their father was John Bowes-Lyon, one of the Queen Mother’s older brothers and a son of the Earl of Strathmore. John died in 1930 and was survived, until
1966, by the girls’ mother, Fenella.

The sisters were unfortunate to have been born in an era when mental disability was seen as a threat to society and linked to promiscuity, feckless breeding and petty crime, the characteristics of the underclass; associations encouraged by popular belief in the science of eugenics, soon to be embraced by the Nazis.

‘So the belief was if you had a child with a learning disability, there was something in your family that was suspect and wrong,’ explains Jan Walmsley, the Open University’s professor in the history of learning disabilities.

For the Bowes-Lyons, this was a stigma that could threaten their social standing and taint the marital prospects of their other children. (Nerissa and Katherine’s beautiful and healthy sister Anne became a princess of Denmark by her second marriage; by her first marriage, she was Viscountess Anson and mother of the society photographer, the late Lord Lichfield.)

The imposing Royal Earlswood was the country’s first purpose-built asylum for people with learning disabilities. Nerissa and Katherine were 15 and 22 respectively when they were admitted. Nerissa’s medical records categorise her as ‘imbecile’. ‘She makes unintelligible noises all the time,’ stated a doctor. ‘Very affectionate… can say a few babyish words.’

Judy Wilkinson, 67, from Godalming, Surrey, recalls her apprehension when visiting the Royal Earlswood as a young girl in the 1950s, when her elder sister Nicola, who was brain-damaged at birth, was consigned there. ‘I’d get that gripping feeling of dread,’ Judy explains, and she remembers feeling puzzled that her sister was always wearing the same green coat, which never seemed to wear out.

Now she realises that the inmates wore their own clothes only if they had visitors. But for Nerissa and Katherine, there were few if any visitors. ‘I never saw anybody come,’ says Dot Penfold. ‘The impression I had was that they’d been forgotten.’

From the late 1960s, a wave of scandals exposed conditions in institutions that were severely understaffed and overcrowded. The Royal Earlswood was closed in 1997; at least one former nurse has alleged patients were abused. The grandiose building has since been converted into luxury apartments, while Katherine is believed to be living in a care home in Surrey. Her relationship with her family remains unchanged.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ng-documentary-reveals-all.html#ixzz3Susmdl1c

Absolutely that happened. I had no idea until about 10 or 15 years ago that my grandfather had a sister that was in some sort of institution since young adulthood. He never talked about her. I never met her. My grandma showed me a photo in an album one day from a visit - must have been in the 80s sometime - that they made to see her. She said "oh she had a nervous breakdown. She wasn't quite right. She's y'know, different." She looked okay to me, and I thought "and she's still there after all this time, and that's it? How awful." and I think I said something to that effect but my grandma brushed over it. I think there was some guilt or shame or something about that. She's passed away, but the rest of the family never really knew her. I didn't know anything about her.
 
Last edited:
@DaisyJane I want to ask you, honestly, and I hope you won't get angry. My question is, does your son face any (according to the social model definition) face many if any barriers as a result of prejudice from society? What types of barriers does he face from society? I suspect there are some.

Is it fair to say that because he has support and parents with means to provide that support, he is more impaired than he is disabled - for the purpose of separating the social and environmental discrimination factors from the effects of CP to his body itself? Would it be okay to see those as two different things but recognize that that makes the impairment itself no less difficult?

I ask because of the wording of this ruling and how it could affect those PWDs who may not have impairments as severe but are still considered disabled - and how the meaning of their lives and where the disabling factors are actually coming from gets distorted by not just naming impairment, but including disability in the wording. I see no reason for it to be there because it is the impairment that causes the suffering you are talking about. The suffering created by disability is society's problem to address. That's why it's important to seperate out what the word means and why. That's what the social model does. It does not negate the symptoms of impairment.
 
Last edited:
What does this have to do with my point. I agree these situations are appalling and should be addressed. I agree society often fails people with disabilities. I agree that there are many who are underemployed and that is a tragedy (and not isolated to people with disabilities). Once again, no argument. But, the people with severe disabilities who I am describing would likely not be able to participate in such programs. This is not an issue of them being underemployed because of societal discrimination. It is that their impairments prevent involvement in such activities. Period. Again. you are basing the overall argument on your particular experience(s).

Also, I would suggest you avoid such derogatory terms such as "dumped". My guess is that you have no idea what the circumstances of these parents were and to suggest they dumped their daughter in the program does a disservice to the complex situation regarding care and needs for adults with severe disabilities that probably existed.

I would say that you are also basing your argument on your experiences, and that's why I am asking you if you would be okay with restricting impairment to impairment and recognizing how disability is the external barriers imposed by society. Do you feel attached to the word disability as synonymous with your son's impairment - or can you allow it to be recognized that disability is outside the person and that is why there is no reason for it to be named in the ruling as a reason a person might seek assisted suicide? Can you let go of using the word disability as equal to impairment for that reason?

The reason I am attached to the social model definition of the word disability is because it seperates whatever suffering is caused by impairment from suffering caused by discrimination/ external barriers. I have no problem calling impairment impairment without having to equate it synonymously with disability. I can see them as different but related.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top