The British Parliament stated that health services would be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (the act). However, when people with disabilities are at their most vulnerable, for example when in hospital or subject to medical procedures, the antidiscrimination law fails them. A review of cases indicates that when people with disabilities are subject to medical treatment, the legislative protections are allowed to vanish. Instead, medical decisions are justified on obscure notions such as "best interests", often with irreversible or even terminal results. This article examines the relevant provisions and limitations of the act, the features of notable non-treatment decisions, and the act's potential to guide future decision making. It argues that antidiscrimination legislation should be assertively applied to protect vulnerable people.
Testimony issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Since the Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs began, much has changed and continues to change in medicine, technology, the economy, and societal views and expectations of people with disabilities. GAO found that scientific advances, changes in the nature of work, and social changes have generally enhanced the potential for people with disabilities to work. Medical advances, such as organ transplantation, and assistive technologies, such as advances in wheelchair design, have given more independence to some individuals. At the same time, a service- and knowledge-based economy has opened new opportunities for people with disabilities, and societal changes have fostered the expectation that people with disabilities can work and have the right to work. GAO further found that DI and SSI disability criteria have not kept pace with these advances and changes. Depending on the claimant's impairment, decisions about eligibility benefits can be based on both medical and labor market criteria. Finally, some steps to incorporate these advances and changes can be taken within the existing programs' design, but some would require more fundamental changes."
Self-reported work disability is analyzed in the US, the UK and the Netherlands. Different wordings of the questions lead to different work disability rates. But even if identical questions are asked, cross-country differences remain substantial. Respondent evaluations of work limitations of hypothetical persons described in vignettes are used to identify the extent to which differences in self-reports between countries or socio-economic groups are due to systematic variation in the response scales. Results suggest that more than half of the difference between the rates of self-reported work disability in the US and the Netherlands can be explained by response scale differences. A similar methodology is used to analyze the reporting bias that arises if respondents justify being on disability benefits by overstating their work limiting disabilities.
"RI 98-2." ; "December 1989." ; Shipping list no.: 90-340-P. ; "Reflects legislation and regulations in effect through November 1989." ; Mode of access: Internet.
Michael Bérubé discusses his son who has Down's Syndrome and his son's education process, then discusses some ideas about how the theory and practice of democracy affects the concept of inalienable human rights. Bérubé is the Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Literature at Pennsylvania State University, where he teaches American literature, disability studies, and cultural studies. He is the author of several books on cultural studies, disability rights, liberal and conservative politics, and debates in higher education. From 2010 to 2017, he was the Director of the Institute for the Arts and Humanities at Penn State; from 1997 to 2001 he was the founding director of the Illinois Program for Research in the Humanities. He was the 2012 president of the Modern Language Association, and served as vice president from 2010–2011. He served two terms on the National Council of the American Association of University Professors from 2005 to 2011, and three terms on the AAUP's Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure from 2009 to 2018. He was a member of the International Advisory Board of the Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes for two terms, 2011-2017. Bérubé was named a University Scholar for research at the University of Illinois in 1995 and was awarded the Faculty Scholar medal for research from Penn State in 2012. The son of Maurice Berube (now Eminent Scholar Emeritus and Professor Emeritus of Educational Leadership at Old Dominion University),Bérubé was born and raised in New York City. He attended Regis High School.He received a B.A. in English from Columbia University in 1982 and a Ph.D. in English from the University of Virginia, where he studied from 1983 to 1989. Bérubé held a professorship in the English department at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign from 1989 to 2001, where he was affiliated with the Unit for Criticism and Interpretive Theory and the Afro-American Studies and Research Program. In 2001, Bérubé moved to Penn State for the then-newly created Paterno Family Professorship in Literature, from which he resigned in the wake of the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.
Testimony issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The Social Security Administration (SSA) has had difficulty in conducting timely reviews of beneficiaries' cases to ensure they are still eligible for disability benefits. SSA has been taking steps to improve the cost-effectiveness of its review process. SSA has linked the review process to eligibility for a new benefit that provides return-to-work services. This testimony looks at SSA's ability to stay current with future reviews, identifies potential improvements to the review process, and assesses the review process--return-to-work link."
A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The three largest disability programs collectively provided $89.7 billion in cash benefits to 10.2 million adults in 2001. However, the Disability Insurance (DI) program, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, and VA disability criteria reflect neither medical and technological advances nor the labor market changes that affect the skills needed to perform work and work settings. If these federal disability programs do not update scientific and labor market information, they risk overestimating the limiting nature of some disabilities while underestimating others. Twelve years ago, both the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began reviewing relevant medical advances and updating the criteria they use to evaluate claims. However, the time the agencies are taking to revise the medical criteria could undermine the very purpose of the update. Moreover, because of the limited role of treatment in the statutory and regulatory design of these programs, the updates have not fully captured the benefits afforded by advances in treatment. Also, the disability criteria used by DI, SSI, and VA programs have not incorporated labor market changes. These programs continue to use outdated information about the types and demands of jobs needed to determine the impact that impairments have on individuals' earning capacity. To incorporate scientific advances and labor market changes into the DI, SSI, and VA programs, steps can be taken within the existing program design, but some would require more fundamental change. Agencies need to continue their medical updates and vigorously expand their efforts to more closely examine labor market changes. At a more fundamental level, SSA and VA could consider changes to the disability criteria that would revisit the programs' basic orientation."
A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The number of people applying for benefits from the Social Security Administration's (SSA) two disability programs grew dramatically during the 1990s. As a result, the Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Programs began to experience huge backlogs of undecided claims. SSA has spent $39 million during the past seven years on various initiatives to help it better manage its caseloads and ensure high-quality service. SSA spent another $71 million to develop an automated disability claims process. This report reviews the status and outcomes of five initiatives intended to improve SSA's disability claims process. GAO found that the results of the initiatives have been disappointing."
In this article the new disability anti‐discrimination law in Sweden is considered. The underlying prejudice‐causes‐discrimination model is criticised. It is argued that the new law ‐ which makes unlawful to discriminate persons with disabilities by applying stereotypes in evaluating them as job applicants outlaws prejudiced behaviour on the part of employers as such, without connecting it with any outcome in employment opportunities. The disability anti‐discrimination law is elitist in so far as it only assists those disabled workers whose profile is rather congruous with the profile of non‐disabled employees. The law individualises a systemic problem; it makes discrimination and exclusion of disabled persons from the labour market a problem concerning the prejudiced individual, thereby simplifying both the problem and the way to solve it. The lawmaker has not taken into consideration systemic aspects or gain‐motivated discrimination, neither that which might appear, as a gulf between ideals and practice are the outcome of a whole range of different practices that respond to different needs. The antidiscrimination law ‐ as if guided by neo‐liberal considerations, i.e. rules are not drawn up in order to direct the behaviour of the market ‐ rescues governments from the requirements of acting on behalf of the disadvantaged group.
A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The Social Security Administration (SSA) has had difficulty in conducting timely reviews of beneficiaries' cases to ensure they are still eligible for disability benefits. SSA has been taking steps to improve the cost-effectiveness of its review process. SSA has linked the review process to eligibility for a new benefit that provides return-to-work services. This report looks at SSA's ability to stay current with future reviews, identifies potential improvements to the review process, and assesses the review process--return-to-work link."
My critics in this symposium illustrate one principle and three fallacies of disability studies. The principle, which we all share, is that all persons are equal and none are less equal than others. No disability, however slight, nor however severe, implies lesser moral, political or ethical status, worth or value. This is a version of the principle of equality. The three fallacies exhibited by some or all of my critics are the following: (1) Choosing to repair damage or dysfunction or to enhance function, implies either that the previous state is intolerable or that the person in that state is of lesser value or indicates that the individual in that state has a life that is not worthwhile or not thoroughly worth living. None of these implications hold. (2) Exercising choice in reproduction with the aim of producing children who will be either less damaged or diseased, or more healthy, or who will have enhanced capacities, violates the principle or equality. It does not. (3) Disability or impairment must be defined relative either to normalcy, "normal species functioning", or "species typical functioning". It is not necessarily so defined.
Includes index. ; Introduction / Linda Hamilton Krieger -- Accommodation and the ADA: unreasonable bias or biased reasoning / Harlan Hahn -- Judicial backlash the RDA,and the civil rights model of disability / Matthew Diller -- Bending over backwards: disability, narcissism,and the law / Lennard J. Davis -- Plain meaning and mitigating measures: judicial construction of the meaning of disability / Wendy E. Parmet -- The ADA and the meaning of disability / Kay Schriner and Richard K. Scotch -- Psychiatric disabilities, the American with Disabilities Act, and the new Workplace Violence Account / Vicki A. Laden and Gregory Schwartz -- From Plessy (1896) and Goesart (1948) to Cleburne (1985) and Garret (2001): a chill wind from the past blows equal protection away / Anita Silvers and Michael Ashley Stein -- Backlash, the political economy, and structural exclusion / Marta Russell -- Administrative remedies and legal disputes: evidence on key controversies underlying implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act / Stephen L. Percy -- Death of Section 504 / Ruth Colker -- Sociolegal backlash / Linda Hamilton Krieger. ; Mode of access: Internet.
