Search results

Source at https://www.hca.westernsydney.edu.au/gmjau. ; The aim of this article is to explore how the political, technological and economic development of recent decades has influenced the identity construction of Sami people with disabilities. While Sami identity work is described as a continuous process carried out in everyday life, the subject is addressed through a presentation and discussion of three narratives. The analysis demonstrates how different types of development have expanded access for Samis with disabilities to participate in traditional Sami activities in many ways and, as such, have increased their opportunities to identify themselves as Sami. At the same time, however, changes in laws and regulations concerning ownership and use of land and sea resources seem to constitute political barriers that hinder disabled Samis from pursuing traditional Sami occupations and activities such as fishing and reindeer herding. Furthermore, 'cultural blindness' among professionals within the welfare system seems to block opportunities for Samis with disabilities to access their own culture through language and traditional Sami way of life. This lack of connection to traditional Sami activities is problematic as it may lead to the perception among both disabled Sami individuals and other Samis that these individuals are not entitled to define themselves as Sami.

AbstractBackgroundIn times of crisis, the interests of the individual might be sacrificed for the health and safety of others. The aim of this study was to explore the situation under Covid‐19 for persons with intellectual disabilities, focusing on implications on the right to self‐determination within health protection.MethodTo understand how the relevant legal framework was governed by authorities and service providers during the Covid‐19 pandemic, we have performed semi‐structured interviews with 19 service providers in municipal home care services.ResultsMany residents were provided adequate and adapted information about Covid‐19, but very few were involved in the introduction and implementation of infection control measures.ConclusionsOur study has revealed how a crisis such as the pandemic not only puts the health of people with intellectual disabilities at risk, but also challenges their right to self‐determination.

Source at https://dgsjournal.org/current-issue/ . ; Globally, Indigenous people, also known as First Peoples, have the poorest health outcomes of all population groups, resulting in significantly higher rates of chronic disease, ill-health, and disability. Recent research strongly suggests that Australian First Peoples and the Sami peoples of the Nordic region are positioned at opposite ends of the disability–health spectrum. Australia's First Peoples, now experience the highest rates of disability in the nation's recorded history, despite the significant government investment over recent decades in national Indigenous policy. Yet, Nordic Indigenous populations appear to have similar health outcomes and living conditions as the rest of the population in the region. In this paper, we compare some of the global assumptions of the two leading countries of the United Nations Human Development Index– Norway (ranked first) and Australia (ranked second)– and examine the ways in which such rankings act to hide the disparities of life trajectories and outcomes for Indigenous persons living with disability compared to the rest of the population in each country. The findings of the comparative analysis illustrate core areas for consideration when undertaking in-depth comparative research with First Nation's peoples. This includes issues surrounding the differentiated political significance of national population data systems for local Indigenous peoples in their struggles for recognition, and the nuanced processes of population data categorisation that are developed as a result of First Nation's localised struggles for recognition, respect and rights under processes of European colonisation.

Globally, Indigenous people, also known as First Peoples, have the poorest health outcomes of all population groups, resulting in significantly higher rates of chronic disease, ill-health, and disability. Recent research strongly suggests that Australian First Peoples and the Sami peoples of the Nordic region are positioned at opposite ends of the disability–health spectrum. Australia's First Peoples, now experience the highest rates of disability in the nation's recorded history, despite the significant government investment over recent decades in national Indigenous policy. Yet, Nordic Indigenous populations appear to have similar health outcomes and living conditions as the rest of the population in the region. In this paper, we compare some of the global assumptions of the two leading countries of the United Nations Human Development Index– Norway (ranked first) and Australia (ranked second)– and examine the ways in which such rankings act to hide the disparities of life trajectories and outcomes for Indigenous persons living with disability compared to the rest of the population in each country. The findings of the comparative analysis illustrate core areas for consideration when undertaking in-depth comparative research with First Nation's peoples. This includes issues surrounding the differentiated political significance of national population data systems for local Indigenous peoples in their struggles for recognition, and the nuanced processes of population data categorisation that are developed as a result of First Nation's localised struggles for recognition, respect and rights under processes of European colonisation. ; publishedVersion ; © The Authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Published version. Source at http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v75.31656 ; Background: A study of disability among the indigenous Sami people in Norway presented a number of ethical and methodological challenges rarely addressed in the literature. Objectives: The main study was designed to examine and understand the everyday life, transitions between life stages and democratic participation of Norwegian Sami people experiencing disability. Hence, the purpose of this article is to increase the understanding of possible ethical and methodological issues in research within this field. The article describes and discusses ethical and methodological issues that arose when conducting our study and identifies some strategies for addressing issues like these. Methods: The ethical and methodological issues addressed in the article are based on a qualitative study among indigenous Norwegian Sami people experiencing disability. The data in this study were collected through 31 semi-structured in-depth interviews with altogether 24 Sami people experiencing disability and 13 next of kin of Sami people experiencing disability (8 mothers, 2 fathers, 2 sister and 1 guardian). Findings and discussion: The researchers identified 4 main areas of ethical and methodological issues. We present these issues chronologically as they emerged in the research process: 1) concept of knowledge when designing the study, 2) gaining access, 3) data collection and 4) analysis and accountability. Conclusion: The knowledge generated from this study has the potential to benefit future health research, specifically of Norwegian Sami people experiencing disability, as well as health research concerning indigenous people in general, providing scientific-based insight into important ethical and methodological issues in research with indigenous people experiencing disability.