"Public policy has been slow to treat disability as a matter of equality, human rights and citizenship"

Authors Avatar

“Public policy has been slow to treat disability as a matter of equality, human rights and citizenship”

What impact will the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the Equality Act 2006 have on public policy in relation to disability?

“Public policy has been slow to treat disability as a matter of equality, human rights and citizenship”

What impact will the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the Equality Act 2006 have on public policy in relation to disability?

The Equality Act and the Disability Discriminations Act, compliment each other in their aims, of eradicating discrimination, from the public domain. The objectives of the Equality Act are wider than those of the Disability Discrimination Act, in that they deal with discrimination on many more different levels than, discrimination against those with a physical or mental impairment, which is exclusively dealt with by the DDA. However what they both have in common is the promotion of equal opportunity and eradication of discrimination.

One of the main features to emerge from the Equality Act is the creation of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) this body will be taking on the role of and replacing the Commission for Equal Opportunity (COE), Commission for Racial Equality, and the Disability Rights Commission (DRC). As is apparent, all these Commissions are aimed at inclusion within the mainstream society of disadvantaged groups, and groups from underrepresented communities. The focus being upon inclusion and being made to stand on an equal footing in conjunction with their duties, responsibilities and rights as citizens. All these commissions which have been replaced and the new CEHR, none of these commissions are actually public policy making bodies, instead they are more involved in public relations, by amalgamating the grievances of the underrepresented and discriminated sections of society and presenting them to the legislating bodies, asking for reform on the behalf of these discriminated communities.

         

Treatment of the disabled, at the hands of the Public Policy.

                         

In contrast to these new attempts at equality, historically and to quite an extent recently disabled people have been viewed to be a burden, due to their impairments, either upon their families, upon charitable organisations and with the introduction of the Welfare State upon the government, and the working populations’ taxes. Disabled people, in the not too far past, prior to the recent legislative interventions’, have for far too long been expected to accept their exclusion from mainstream society, as being not only inevitable but without any means of alleviation.

This dependence, upon the good nature or charity of others, has meant that disabled people have been, (for the want of a better means of phrasing it,) ‘at the mercy of’ others. This demeaning existence means, that disabled people, especially those who suffer higher levels of disabilities affecting the mental capabilities and dexterity, have been left to survive on very little, not only have their standards of living been menial, and demeaning but their capacity to live fully integrated and socially active lives have been denied. Researchers Gwynne and Miller commented upon the treatment of those living in Le Court Cheshire Home, the residents of the home were described as having:

being denied the elementary right to organise their own lives the researchers concluded that disabled residents in institutional homes were ‘socially dead’ and that the function of the home was to manage the transition from social to actual death.”

This rather poignant and disturbing phrase “socially dead” coined as a result of Miller and Gwynne’s research reflects upon the awkwardness we feel towards an entire stratum of society, and our responsibility towards them. If we are to sincerely speak of the injustice borne by the disabled, in particular, with regards to the ominous existence of mental institutions, one such institution based in Oregon in operation between 1900-1970, has recently been brought to the headlines. The hospital in the past was empowered to cremate remains of the unclaimed and forgotten, “socially dead” who within the confines of the hospital completed the transition from being socially dead to being actually dead. After seventy years into the termination of such practices remain, 3,600 unmarked urns with cremated remains of forgotten relatives, are still waiting to be claimed.  

This process of taking away the power to make choices is methodical, and like all other forms of discrimination it has been diplomatically and discreetly inherent, with the public policy making sector, who have so far, equated disability with constant need for dependence. The Society for Physically Impaired Against Segregation commented upon this methodical exclusion of the disabled from society, saying:

        ‘Our own position on disability is quite clear ... In our view, it is society which

disables physically impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments, by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full

participation in society. Disabled people are therefore an oppressed group in society.’

 

The inference which can be drawn from these studies is that the disability has historically existed within society at two levels, firstly a as a physical impairment and secondly as a barrier into society. Mike Oliver, comments upon this social exclusion, stating:

“Disability cannot be abstracted from the social world which produces it; it does not exist outside the social structure in which it is located and independent of the meanings given to it. In other words, disability is socially produced.”

Oliver feels social exclusion of the disabled population is further reflected upon the ways in which research is carried out by able bodied people attempting to work out the needs of the disabled, in order to legislate upon it and then finally implement upon these stipulations as public policy, he states:

These social relations are built upon a firm distinction between the researcher and researched; upon the belief that it is the researchers who have specialist knowledge and skills; and it is they who should decide what topics should be researched and be in control of the whole process of research production.”

Join now!

This under-representation of disabled people as public policy researchers, has historically resulted in disabled people again being are stripped of the powers to decide as to how to live their lives. The societal perception of disability, as already mentioned has been viewed as giving rise to a culture of dependence, Mike Oliver contradicts this sentiment by positing:

“Disabled people have argued that our problems are not caused by tragedy but by the failure of society to take account of our needs and therefore we need social change not charity.”

Oliver argues in the best interest of the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay