Okay. I have to applaud disability activists and their argument over the medicalization to achieve "normal" bodies. As much as some disabilities really are able-bodied versus the disabled, most things can just be viewed as deviations from the "norm" that society hascreatedand not actually a disability. Page 340 states that these activists call for a shift in perspective from a medical model to a social one. The real hardships come from other people and their judgments, criticisms, and pity. By looking down on someone becauseoftheirdisability, they rob that person the chance to prove themselves as equals. And if they do, then they are extraordinary. Normal isn't even an option then.
The Mad activists struggle through similar battles. One of their qualms with psychiatrization is that it provides "tremendous social and psychological pressure to stay on the side of normality, or sanity" (pp 340). Yet, these same people make a lot of money and have expensive hobbies such as collecting art, which may never have been created if the artist wasn't mad. I feel that is an argument for enabling. Doesn't society encourage such things as the arts? And don't we as art therapists provide opportunities to elmore alternative forms of treatment for these samemad people? It's a paradox.
I think this may tie into the struggle that disability and Mad activists have with each other. Physically disabled persons mayn't necessarily work without be associated with crazy people and Mad activists may not view their condition as a handicap. But as the article suggests, the two factions need to team up to form a formidable coalition.
The only other thing I found worth noting was the NO FORCED TREATMENT EVER rule (pp. 348). The only question I have is, what if the person is unable to make choices? We limit kids choices because "they don't know any better" but isn't that the exact same argument? Who determines the cut off point of understanding?
No comments:
Post a Comment