Talk:Disability rights movement
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
RE: "The question of whether severely mentally disabled persons should be allowed to have sex is a controversial one. In Germany, this topic is brought to the fore by Nina de Vries who offers paid sexual services to these persons."
- Why is this topic covered on a page that relates to the Disability Rights Movement? Can somebody provide references for this topic? Why is this topic controversial? On what grounds does it relate to the article at hand? I will delete this section unless someone can provide a rationale for it by the middle of next week. --Nicholas 13:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe the basis of this section to be incorrect: it is not true that developmental disability is synonymous with intellectual disability. "Intellect" is usually associated with one's cognitive development, which is only one facet of overall human development.. Not all developmental disorders are cognitive or intellectual in nature. Was the author referring to mental retardation? MR is only one example of a developmental disability. Autism is a developmental disability which is only partially (and not always) intellectually based; it's noted more as a socio-emotional disability (especially the case with higher-functioning Autism and Asperger's). Language-based disabilities including language delays are often developmental in nature but do not affect a person's IQ score (which is how intelligence is generally assessed). Developmental disabilities can include motor impairments, too. To what was the author referring when s/he wrote this piece and where was his/her information coming from?
Links to wrong John Tyler
The link in the personalities section goes to John Tyler, Jr. (1790–1862) who was the tenth President of the United States. I am new to wiki, and I do not know how to fix the link. QiamiCaang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is currently no article for John Tyler thd disability rights advocate. The name has tehrefor ebene delinked. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Disability as a fundamental right?
Is there a fundamental constitutional or basic human right to be or remain disabled? That is let's assume some scientific team develops a pill or syringe that causes people's amputated limbs to regrow safely and perfectly. The government makes the treatment available to anybody crippled for free. Does the gov't have the authority to forcibly compel all medically suitable crippled persons to receive the treatment - or do maimed people have the right to refuse, remain un-whole and continue to live as is, potentially on social warfare support?
Considering christian techings it seems that preserving or regaining one's phyisical health and wholeness is a heavenly commandment (see the moral ban on suicide), therefore most white countries would probably legislate the pro-govt way in this regard. Also, where mandatory military service (conscription) still exists, gov't could force people to regain able-bodiedness so they can serve in armed forces and potentially die for the motherland.
In fact there was already an inverted case in Germany, where a mentally disturbed person wanted the court of law to compel doctors to chop his perfectly healthy legs off, because he felt the legs gave him bad karma and poor vibrations.
- No offense intended, but I think this is a very important basic issue. Owing to exponential advances in cyber-mechatronics and microbiology (genetics), either robotic or cloned near-perfect limb replacements will be widely available in a few decades and questions of mandatory whole-ness will appear. I admit this is not a practical issue right now, but could be a source of future contention. 126.96.36.199 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
An interesting debate, and one which I feel would benefit from being thrashed out here for a while before anyone incorporates it into the main article.
Surely it's an inaliable human right to refuse medical treatment? Medical professionals are generally expected to respect individuals' autonomy and self determination. There are a few notable and debatable exceptions, such as:
- the treatment of those who are deemed to be mentally ill
- the force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strike (although most doctors would refuse to intervene, citing the Declarations of Tokyo and Malta)
- the treatment of people in comas or who are otherwise unable to communicate, or people who, because of perceived intellectual impairment, are deemed not to have the mental capacity to make informed decisions about their own treatment
- situations where the needs of the mother is at odds with the needs of the unborn foetus (a topic which I should imagine creates more than enough heat over at the foetal rights and abortion debate talk pages and plenty of other places)
I'm sure there are a few other examples, but on the whole, doctors simply don't treat patients without the patients' consent: I like to remain optimistic that medical professionals wouldn't allow themselves to be dragged onto such an ethical battleground.
There is a separate (but connected) issue: if an individual is deemed unable to work (and therefore receives state benefits) and refuses to be "cured" in order to be more employable, would a society view it as morally justifiable for those benefits to be discontinued? Dom Kaos (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Dreams for Kids
I've removed the link for Dreams for Kids. The rules regarding spam on Wikipedia are quite clear: "[a]dding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam". Although the website in question is related to disability, it doesn't appear to be more notable in the disability rights movement than many, many other organisations: clearly they can't all be included or pretty soon the article just turns into a massive, unwieldy directory. If anyone can come up with a compelling reason why this particular organisation is exceptionally noteworthy and its link should be included, please feel free to discuss it here Dom Kaos (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Abuse of Rights
I would like for the potential for the abuse of rights to be talked about in this article. I come from a city in California, where a historic drive-in establishment had to be shut down when a person was using his disabilities to take establishments that didn't have handicapped this-or-that to court.
Upon investigation, it turns out that the drive-in had to shut down because it couldn't afford the law-suit that a person in a wheelchair was raising against it because the establishment didn't have ramps for disabled people according to the Americans with Disabilities Act, even though the restroom WAS handicap accessible, and it was business policy to take food out to guests that were disabled.
Turns out this guy was just using his disability to go around California specifically hunting out establishments that he could sue.
There was no discrimination going on there, just another product of our victim society with a sense of entitlement to what the world owes him for having been involved in a crippling car accident. Finally, 400 lawsuits later, the U.S. Supreme Court puts an end to this man's extortion, but not before my town was marred by his anger and greed.
Don't get me wrong, I think people with disabilities shouldn't be shut out of society, but what happened in my town has left me bitter, and I really don't want to hear any more people whining because there's no ramp to this or that, especially when owners of establishments are NOT discriminatory and are more than willing to help a disabled person out. Are they going to sue the country of Nepal for not providing an escalator up to the peak of Mt. Everest so that "everyone" can climb it? Is the point of rights and law so that disabled people can be treated equally? Or do they exist so that disabled people shouldn't ever have to be reminded that no, they CAN'T do everything everyone else can do, and that at some point or another, people are going to have to rely on help??? I'll recognize your disability as soon as you recognize my ability. I don't support disabled rights if this is what it means, sorry.
- Kogejoe, this isn't "our" article: Wikipedia is here for anyone (including yourself) to contribute to. You seem to be quite interested in this subject, so perhaps you'd like to add a paragraph about criticisms of the disability rights movement? I see from your edit history that you're quite an experienced wikipedian, so I'm sure you're familiar with the guidelines about maintaining a neutral point of view, citing your sources and avoiding the inclusion your own original ideas or research. If you're unsure about a particular line, you can always bring it here first for discussion before adding it to the main article. Go for it! :-) Dom Kaos (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This subject is clearly of global significance yet the content of the article is almost exclusively written about and from the POV of the USA. Another issue I have is that the term "movement" is consistently used in the singular form throughout the article, thus implying that disability rights issues have been and continue to be driven by a monolithic organization - this is obviously not true. Roger (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The timeline is getting very large. It is a very detailed "blow by blow" account of a myriad events - all in the US. It is dominating this article to the point of becoming hard to discern the actual topic of this article. I think it may be time to split it off to it's own page - Timeline of significant events in the disability rights movement in the United States or something similar. This article can then get back to focussing on its primary purpose of giving a global overview of the entire phenomenon of disability rights movements. (Note the plural - there never has been, nor will there ever be, a single monolithic global organisation). What say you all? Roger (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I found a source from UC Berkeley
See http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/drilm/index.html - It seems to have some very good source material to flesh out this article and restore some balance away from the simplistic timeline that is threatening to take over the page. We still need a lot of non US material too though. Roger (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- What should I do?
You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.
Currently, this article lacks information on the state of disability discrimination before the disability rights movement. I was shocked, for example, to learn of "ugly laws" in the US. Could this be added to the timeline, perhaps? Pdxuser (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)