Medical and Social Disability - Essay Example

Medical and Social Disability are treated much different today than they have been in the past. The approach is much more humanistic now than it was. There is also much controversy over what the definitions of each of these disabilities are and whether the need is even now being met correctly. There are certainly issues still remaining that neither the medical nor the social model have solved. Society still continues with problems relating to separation because of disability and we still continue to debate whether a disability is a disability after all. This paper will discuss the history of disability, moving forward through the definitions of medical and social disability. How intellectual disabilities are seen in society today and finally what still needs to be done will be discussed. History The history of all disabilities is dark. For many years a disability meant disgrace, guilt, and embarrassment. Many cultures associated any disability with sin and shame. That sin and shame often times extended to the whole family. Family members were locked away in closets or attics rather than allow the public to see them. This happened whether the disability was physical or mental. Many were cared for by family members, many were neglected and many were placed in asylums (Grob, 2003). Then came the mental hospitals. There essential function in the early years was to incarcerate rather than treat. Non productive individuals were removed from society and placed in these institutions as poorer families were not able to care for them at home. This included idiot children who could not be hidden away at home The Medical and Social Model Since the 1960’s, society has become more interested in how the mentally and physically disabled are treated. Two models have developed out of the concern, though there still remains much controversy as to what those models mean and whether society has chosen to do the right thing for the person or for society (Grob, 2003). The original medical model came about in the 19th century and believed that the problems causing the disability reside within the individual. The medical model of illness or disability is the result of a physical condition that affects activities of daily living. It is intrinsic to the individual and usually the individual’s quality of life is affected. This disability usually causes some clear disadvantages to this individual. The disability can range from loss of limb to shortness of breath from cardiac injury. The deciding factor in calling it a disability is whether it limits activities of daily living. Curing or managing in this case revolves around identifying the illness and understanding and learning to control and alter its course. The medical model is often cited by disability rights groups when evaluating costs and benefits of various interventions whether they are medical, surgical, social or occupational. This medical model is the one that most run up against when there is a decision to be made as to whether a disability will prevent work. There are fewer stigmas to the medical model than the social model and many would rather have been diagnosed with the medical model. Most treatment from the standpoint of the medical model is from control of an issue, many times with medication (Lewis, 2009). Last but not least the medical model assumes that a person cannot function at the level of others without special attention. There has been a shift away from the medical model which perceives disability as an individual problem to be cured or controlled towards a more social model (Humpage, 2007). The social model focuses on the relationship between people with disabilities and social environments and tries to locate the intervention that will work within the realm of social policies and institutional practices. This shifts us away from the medical profession as a whole and moves the person towards a vision of self-reliance (Humpage, 2007). The social model of disability proposes that systemic barriers or negative attitudes by society have excluded the person from factors in society. It recognizes that while some people have physical, sensory, intellectual, or psychological variations, which sometimes cause individuals to function in a limited or impaired way, they do not have to be disabled unless society makes them that way. There is not denial that some individual differences lead to individual limitations or impairment but rather that these are not the things that cause the exclusion (Lewis, 2009). The introduction of the social model was in an attempt to move the spotlight away from the medical model (Brittain, I., 2004). Some would ask whether it is cultural competency that is being considered disability. (Lewis, 2009). The UK organization, Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) claimed that disability was: “the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organization which takes little or no account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from participation in the mainstream of social activities (Bayless, 2008). In 1983, the disabled academic Mike Oliver coined the phrase “social model of disability” in reference to these ideological developments (Bayless, 2008). The social model was then extended and developed by academics and activists in the UK and extended to include all disabled people, including those with learning disabilities, or have experienced the mental health system (Bayless, 2008). The Debate Rages There is tension between the competing camps. Disagreement occurs among the many studies on the different models and how they should be used. There is a platform for discussion and research in the fields of disability studies and special needs education. The last 30 years has brought about a wealth of literature in an attempt to consolidate the debate and produce consistent knowledge of impairment and disability. Part of that debate centers around the belief that many have which eludes to the fact that medical or social model perspectives cause the richness of experience of people with impairments is denied because of the two models (Simmons, 2008). This allows that the person becomes lost within the definitions or framework of the model itself because of medical symptoms or social inequalities. They believe that by moving past the models completely, there is the chance that a new knowledge of how disability works will emerge as a new model (Simmons, 2008). Perceptions of a disability by both the disabled person as well as society in general may be the place where the work needs to take place. A study by LoBianco et. al. (2007) discusses self perception and the disability and the belief that others perceive one of having a disability. This study showed that many disabled people do not know they are disabled until society tells them they are. Many feel that they have the same chances as anyone else, they just have to do things a little differently. Only after society begins to make amendments in everyday things like work do they begin to think they may be different (LoBianco, et.al, 2007) which then makes you wonder whether there should be a third model. Ralston and Ho (2008), would suggest that the terms disability, human being, and person carry with them great significance. This work states that there are ways in which we define humanity, personhood, and disability. We, in our definitions have decided that if the disability arises from a social reason then efforts are made to alter the social environment for that person. This may be impossible to do. We then question, because of our personhood and humanity, whether it is our moral obligation to the disabled person outweighs this impossibility. That brings us to ask, are all the impairments that we treat as disabilities really disabilities? Who should determine if this is an impairment and are we forcing the impairment on the individual? The end result of this according to Ralston et.al (2008) is that this is merely a squabble about semantics and rather than debate these issues, we should be moving on to how we can reshape the human experience. What happens Now Based on qualitative anthropological studies of American mothers of infants and young children with newly diagnosed disability, mothers understand and define disability in relation to the public. Mothers seem to comply with the medical model in order to manage opportunities in mainstream society. However, many of these mothers stated during their questionnaires that they would not have known that their child had a disability had they not been treated as if that were true (Landsmen, 2005). Today’s children have many issues including dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, birth defects and psychological issues. Are they treated differently than they used to be? Well, they are not locked up in asylums and in most cases they are not locked in the closet or the attic. However, many would debate as to whether they are not locked up in some manner. Deaf children learn to speak to other deaf children and are many times sent to special schools where they learn brail and sign (Roberts, 2009). Does this solve the problem of disability or does it create a second disability in separating them from society in general? Certainly this challenges the view that there is on medical model of disability imposed on the disabled and in particular disabled children. The presence of disability may be ambiguous in any given case. Parents need to advocate early over disability and how that disability needs to be treated or not treated (Ong-Dean, 2005). What about the child who has attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity syndrome? This child is hard to contain in the classroom and his ability to concentrate is affected. Most of these children are on some drug, of which there are many these days, which is some cases helps the child to concentrate and in some it does not. Whether these children are on medication or not, they are ostracized. First, they have behavior issues and second they are taking drugs. Are we making them better or worse? Are we taking away some ability they might have to control themselves by giving them medication instead? Certainly these are questions we need to be asking and it appears that might lead to a new model of disability. Persons with intellectual disabilities are still often treated like they have severe psychiatric disorders. Antispychotics are often used to treat their aggressive behaviors. It is interesting to note that acute psychotic disorder diagnosis has decreased greatly over the last few years but the use of antipsychotics are at the same level (Tsioceris, 2010). Other disorders such as genetic disorders, early victimization, and mood disorders are often treated like schizophrenia. It is not usual to find a child who is being treated for schizophrenia that has a learning disorder. These are the places where we are still failing. Children with learning disabilities, as well as adults are often shunned by society in such a way that it creates personality disorders on top of them. These children are often placed in classes for the learning disabled when the truth is, they just learn differently. These classes create a social conundrum for these children, however (Tsioceris, 2010). Adolescents with intellectual disabilities re likely to have emotional and behavioral problems. Studies show that many of them are in trouble with the law early in life. It is not difficult to understand why, considering the previous discussion but certainly tells us that we have a long way to go (Oesburg, Jansen, Groothoff, 2010). Conclusion Disability and its treatment have come a long way. There are no longer attics or asylums full of the disabled. Two models of disability have been in effect and have been debated and evaluated. Those being the medical and social models. However the model may still not be correct. How intellectually disabled are treated from the time they are young children may actually create bigger issues as they grow older. Adults find themselves separated from society because of disabilities of all kinds even though the present models were meant to help do away with that. Are the answers there yet? This writer believes no, much more research needs to be done and a better model developed Bibliography Bayless,P., Simmons, B, Blackmore, T. (2008). Postmodern synergistic knowledge creation: extending the boundaries of disability studies Disability and Society 23(7) 733-745. Brittain, I. (2004). Perceptions of Disability and their impact upon involvement in Sport for People with Disabilities at all Levels. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 28(4). 429-452. Grob, G. (2003). Mental Disability in Victorian England: THE Earlswood Asylum. Journal of Social History 36(4). 1108. Humpage, L. (2007). Models of Disability, Work, and Welfare in Australia. Social Policy and Administration 41(3). 215-331. Landsman, G. (2005). Mothers and Models of Disability. Journal o Medical Humanities. 26(2) 121-139. Lewis, A. (2009). Disability disparities: A beginning model. Disability and Rehabilitation. 31 (14). 1136-1143. LoBianco, A, Sheppard-Jones, K (2007). Perceptions of Disability as related to Medical and Social Factors. (2007). Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37(1). 1-13. Oesburg, B, Jansen, D,. Groothoff, J. Dynesora, G., Rerjneudd, S, Emotional and behavioral problems in adolescents with intellectual disability with and without chronic diseases. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 54(1). 81-89. Ong-Dean, C., Reconsidering the Social Location of the Medical Mode. An Examined of Disability in Parenting Literature. Journal of Medical Humanities. 36(2). 141-158. Ralston, C, Ho, J. (2008). Disability, Humanity and personhood: A survey of Moral Concepts. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32(6) 619-633. Roberts, K. (2009). Lost in the system? Disabled refugees and asylum seeker in Britain. Disability and Society 15(6). 943-948. Rosen, RS. (2008). Descriptions of the American deaf Community. Disability and Society. 23(2). 129-40. Tsiouris, J, (2010). Pharmacotherapy for aggressive behavior in persons with intellectual disabilities: treatment or mistreatment? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research: 54(1) 1-16. Read More