So, I have made my podcast debut. And as if that's not exciting enough, I am sharing the 
Disablism on twitter...
What with the 'crazed madman' in Norway, and Caitlin Moran talking about retards, disability hate speech is everywhere at the moment.
[The image is a disability access symbol for people with visual impairments. It has a dark blue background and a grey circle, in which there is a stick figure using what appears to be a cane. The image has been edited to add a fatter tummy and pink hair.]"To become visually impaired, for instance, may be a personal tragedy for a sighted person whose life is based around being sighted, who lacks knowledge of the experiences of people with visual impairments, whose identity is founded on being sighted, and who has been subjected to a daily diet of the personal tragedy model of visual impairment."They go on to explain that the Tragedy model of disability and impairment "is not just significant for non-disabled people in understanding themselves and their own lives. It is extrapolated to assumptions about disabled people and their lives".
Maybe if we stopped fat-shaming and equating women’s attractiveness and worth to unreasonable, media-driven standards of beauty, women wouldn’t value their appearance over health..But blindness in itself is not ill-health! There are very, very many completely healthy blind people, both thin and fat. While I agree with her absolutely about fat-shaming and unreasonable standards of beauty, the rest of the equation does not sit comfortably me, speaking as a fat, disabled woman. It makes me feel like women believe I must have the absolute worst of both worlds, and the last thing I want, when reading feminist websites, is to come away feeling worse about myself than when I started.
Dear Mr Proud,
I was dismayed to hear that today, your gallery refused entry to a woman who is a wheelchair user, on the basis that her wheelchair took up too much room. Your website boasts of 'some of the best press coverage in the country' and 'exciting, cutting edge and sometimes controversial' exhibitions, and states, rather ironically in the circumstances, that "Based upon a formula of exhibiting accessible shows around popular themes Proud Galleries instantly took the photography industry by storm".
How accessible is a show if a woman is not allowed to enter because of her use of a wheelchair?
As well as being deeply disrespectful and offensive, I am sure you are aware that this is also illegal under the Disability Discrimination Act. I see also that you have Mencap listed under your Sponsors, and I will be contacting them separately to ensure they are aware of this situation.
Dear Mencap,
Please find below an email I have just sent to Proud Galleries, who list you as a sponsor. I thought you would want to be aware of the situation.
"Sorry for upset. We have 2 wheel chair access points, we open our doors to everyone. Capacity was reached, it was a 1 in 1 out policy to all."
DO NOT EXPECT YOUR DOCTOR TO SHARE YOUR DISCOMFORT
Involvement with the patient's suffering might cause him to lose valuable scientific objectivity.
BE CHEERFUL AT ALL TIMES
Your doctor leads a busy and trying life and requires all the gentleness and reassurance he can get.
TRY TO SUFFER FROM THE DISEASE FOR WHICH YOU ARE BEING TREATED
Remember that your doctor has a professional reputation to uphold.
DO NOT COMPLAIN IF THE TREATMENT FAILS TO BRING RELIEF
You must believe that your doctor has achieved a deep insight into the true nature of your illness, which transcends any mere permanent disability you may have experienced.
NEVER ASK YOUR DOCTOR TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE IS DOING OR WHY HE IS DOING IT
It is presumptuous to assume that such profound matters could be explained in terms that you would understand.
SUBMIT TO NOVEL EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT READILY
Though the surgery may not benefit you directly, the resulting research paper will surely be of widespread interest.
PAY YOUR MEDICAL BILLS PROMPTLY AND WILLINGLY
You should consider it a privilege to contribute, however modestly, to the well-being of physicians and other humanitarians.
DO NOT SUFFER FROM AILMENTS THAT YOU CANNOT AFFORD
It is sheer arrogance to contract illnesses that are beyond your means.
NEVER REVEAL ANY OF THE SHORTCOMINGS THAT HAVE COME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE OF TREATMENT BY YOUR DOCTOR
The patient-doctor relationship is a privileged one, and you have a sacred duty to protect him from exposure.
NEVER DIE WHILE IN YOUR DOCTOR'S PRESENCE OR UNDER HIS DIRECT CARE
This will only cause him needless inconvenience and embarrassment.
One year after its damning report into the delivery of health care to disabled people, the Disability Rights Commission, the statutory watchdog organisation for people with disabilities in England, Wales, and Scotland, says in a new report that little has changed to bridge the gap in health care.
An investigation into healthcare given to people with mental health problems and learning disabilities shows they often get worse treatment than others.
The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) - which examined eight million health records - says the government could face legal action unless things change.
The study concentrated on primary care in England and Wales, which will soon fall under new equality laws.
The government says it has already started acting on the report.
The 18-month investigation shows that people with learning disabilities and mental health problems are more likely to have a major illness, to develop a serious health condition younger and to die sooner than the rest of the population.
Such people were less likely to have routine tests and screening to pick up signs of a problem in its early stages.
'Lazy fatalism'
The DRC also found that people with learning disabilities and mental health problems face "real barriers" when accessing services.
"The acid test of a national health service is not whether it works for those who are generally healthy, but whether it benefits those with the greatest risk," said DRC chairman, Bert Massie.
He said that the response from the government and the NHS was "deeply inadequate", a situation which was made worse by "a dangerously complacent attitude and a lazy fatalism" on the part of the medical profession.
"This is completely unacceptable - we need to see a radical change in the commissioning, targeting and delivery of health services in order to close this gap quickly."
The British Medical Association (BMA) has described the findings as "extremely worrying".
"As doctors, we believe it is unacceptable for the healthcare needs of this group of people to be ignored," said Dr Sam Everington, who co-chairs the BMA's equal opportunities committee.
He said the report would be discussed by GPs at the BMA in the near future.
The Department of Health said it would be working with the DRC to develop a full response to the investigation.
Mental health charity Sane said it was "disturbing" that people with mental illnesses were at greatest risk of becoming physically ill through neglect.
The charity's Marjorie Wallace called for a "new drive amongst all health professionals to ensure that each time a person with mental illness receives medical help, they are given a physical health check".
Eight million records
The investigation spoke to senior health professionals, policy makers and disabled people themselves.
Researchers analysed eight million health records in three primary care trusts (PCTs) in England and one local health board in Wales.
The DRC says that in spite of increased needs of these two groups, important checks are provided less often.
For example, people with learning disabilities who have diabetes have fewer measurements of their body mass index, while those who have had a stroke have fewer blood pressure checks.
The investigation identified a problem known as "diagnostic overshadowing" - where symptoms of physical ill health are often seen as part of a patient's mental health problem or learning disability and are not properly investigated or treated.
More than 50% of people who spoke to researchers said they experienced difficulties when trying to see their GP.
They identified the attitude of reception staff, inflexible appointments and inaccessible information as being some of the causes.
A few said they were not registered with a family doctor or had been struck off the list for being too demanding.
The report did identify areas of good practice but the DRC says services are frequently working in isolation and initiatives developed by specialists have not become part of the mainstream.
The government is being urged to put in place a number of improvements to "close the gap".
"We agree with the broad thrust of the DRC's recommendations and have already started to act," said health minister Rosie Winterton.
She said £7m had been made available to almost 90 PCTs to employ "wellbeing nurses" to help mental health patients.
The department has also allocated £42m to PCTs to help them to implement further measures to improve the care of people with learning disabilities.
This is an open letter, and if I thought that it would be welcome, I’d have started it with the words “Dear Incurable Hippy”. But if I’m angry with people, the last thing I want is for them to be civil without saying anything helpful. So I’m not going to do it here.
What I would like to say is that the Sheffield Fems as a group have been wrong, and have done wrong, and that I, personally, have done wrong. And for all of that, I am sorry.
I don’t want to try to offer any glib explanations.
I have been wrong. I haven’t done enough. I saw your post last time you publicly showed how angry you were. I saw it and brought it up at a meeting and asked that something be done about it. I didn’t follow up on it. I should have done. I should have kept asking, and kept looking for different venues, and kept insisting that we did something about the pub, and I didn’t do any of those things. I don’t hold the Sheffield Fems email account, and I used that as an excuse to distance myself from it, and from you.
I am very, very sorry.
As of yet, we haven’t had to pay for the use of the room in the University Arms. But that doesn’t make it right. I can’t - and wouldn’t - argue with any other point you make. You’re right. And it’s my fault as much as - if not more so - than anybody else. Because I was the one who first saw the post you wrote last time, and I didn’t do enough for you.
Although I can see that by now, it’s unlikely you’d ever want to associate with me (or with the fems in general), I would like to promise you that this time, I won’t let it rest. As I should have done the first time, I consider myself warned. I am ashamed of myself.
I have been ablist. You’d think I’d know better. I will try my hardest to make up for that, and make sure that I don’t do it again.
I hope you can accept this as a sincere apology, but I understand if you can’t. Either way, and regardless of whether we ever meet (although I hope that we do, one day), I wish you well.
2. We're having another crack at looking into moving the meetings. Any suggestions more than welcome... we need somewhere with a private room we can book long term, that's accessible by all, is central and is free/ really really cheep! This is a difficult list of requirement to meet so please suggestions!!!
We are still trying to find a new place to meet that has disabled access. Currently we meet upstairs in the University Arms which has no disabled access at all, although we keep being told they are working on it! (Personally I think they need a good kick up the arse on this because they’re been saying that for a while now and nothing has changed!!!)
Is it the pub that needs a kick up the arse? Or the customers who continue to use it?
However there are certain limitation on where we can meet as well…
A lot places charge to book rooms which we just can’t afford! Any fundrising we do we want to be using for campaigns and charities not just on booking a room (and some of them are really expensive)
They are now paying to use the inaccessible room, which makes me wonder about the above point.
It has been suggested several times that we use the Student’s Union building. We are a university group so would be entitled to book rooms, but we are also open to none student and the union building is not open to the public in the evenings (it is possible to sign people in) and we don’t want to alienate none students either! There maybe the possibility of booking Coffee Revolution, but this again does require that it ‘makes money’ and if that means that we have to guarantee a certain amount of sales this could be a problem (I’m going to investigate this)
It is possible for non-students to be signed in. It is not possible for people who can't climb stairs to climb stairs. Who's being alienated?
So we need to find somewhere free, but we would also, ideally like to find somewhere with a more relaxed atmosphere as we have found that this results in more welcoming and relaxed meetings, which is important to us. Particularly when we have new members or are discussing sensitive issues we have found that atmosphere is important and sterile meetings rooms can be rather intimidating. Equally we do need a private room. For a while we met in the downstairs bar area of the University Arms and found that we weren’t able to have open discussions and debate or even hear each other half the time!
How great is an excluding, exclusive atmosphere? How relaxed is that?
This is an issue that is discussed fairly regularly in meetings but one we are yet to resolve! Trying to find the balance of a venue that is accesible and welcoming to all and will not take all our money is really not as easy as it should be. Please let us know if you have suggestions either through the website or through email (I shall apologies in a advance if I forget to the reply to emails, I have a mind like a sieve! I do read all the emails and all points are taken on board, but sometimes I forget to reply. *Sorry*) and feel free to contact the University Arms and tell them to hurry up with the disabled access!
I don't know whether to be reassured that it is discussed regularly. It is virtually never on the agenda or in the minutes. What does that say about the discussion? And if it's discussed that regularly, why hasn't something been done?
You can't put all the blame on the venue you choose to use. You choose to use it!
We talked extensively about the pros and cons of all the suggestions made and tried to find the most inclusive solution that meets the needs of as many as possible
. Non-disabled feminists continue to treat disability as a
side issue, an optional extra and in no way part of the so-called mainstream
academic or political debates. The disabled people's movement - while
many and sometimes the majority of its activists are women - is still
informed by political and theoretical debates which strangely sideline
women's experiences and issues.
[...]
A failure to understand the social model of disability lies at the heart of the
dominant reaction to the situation where children are having to provide
support to their disabled parent. Challenging the medical model of
disability and the dominant concepts of independence and dependence can
help us to promote disabled women's human and civil rights.
[...]
As Liz Crow writes in Encounters with Strangers, we need to put back the
experience of impairment into our politics. We need to write about,
research and analyse the personal experience of our bodies and our minds
for if we don’t impose our own definitions and perspectives then the non-
disabled world will continue to do it for us in ways which alienate and
disempower us.
The author discusses shortcomings in the women's therapy community's response to disabled women and suggests some analysis of the phenomenon of what she calls the "active unwillingness to know."
[...]
DePauw reflects on the often misunderstood and ignored intersection of gender and disability, an intersection she sees as a "final frontier." Feminist issues often have revolved around the female body and the exploitation of it; when disability issues are raised, it can work to disrupt and complicate issues of exploitation and control of female bodies and identity.
[...]
The feminist movement is not sufficiently conscious of its own "ableism." Feminists who criticize the traditional sex roles of wife and mother are insensitive to the fact that women with disabilities are taught that they are asexual, as oppressive a message as that conveyed by heterosexism. What is more, feminism's strategy of complete separation from patriarchal society ignores the fact that women with disabilities experience constant and tangible barriers such as physical inaccessibility. The writer suggests that women with and without disabilities need to communicate, so that a new critical feminist anthropology can be engendered; an anthropology that will take not only gender into account, but also sickness, disability, and age as powerful shapers of self and society.
[...]
This paper analyses how disability informs and complicates gender identity for women with disabilities and demonstrates that disability is a feminist issue. The first section underscores the dual silence of women with disabilities who remain largely unheard of, both in feminist literature and in the disability rights movement.
[...]
The second section of this paper suggests possible points of entry into several debates within feminist literature that would be broadened or transformed by a disability perspective. Issues of reproductive rights, control of women's bodies, newborn's right to treatment, the construction of gender as informed by disability, and sexual representations are among the issues analyzed.
[...]
the last section of this paper analyzes various strategies for change, including standpoint or minority models and strategies within feminist thought that may be useful or emancipatory for women with disabilities.
[...]
how applying a “disability lens” and reflecting the values and vision of disability feminism can help us bring the voices and visions of disabled women and girls to the policy arena and to feminist research, policy and advocacy agendas.
[...]
feminist critical analysis does not usually recognize disability as a category of otherness (as it does with race, class, and gender) unless the study specifically states this focus.
[...]
an articulation of feminist Disability Studies as a “major critical subgenre within feminism.” She asserts that feminist Disability Studies can be located in the broader area of identity politics if discourses of the body marked as deviant are included.
[...]
Feminist disability theory augments the terms and confronts the limits of the ways we understand human diversity, the materiality of the body, multiculturalism, and the social formations that interpret bodily differences. The essay asserts that integrating disability as a category of analysis and a system of representation deepens, expands, and challenges feminist theory. To elaborate on these premises, the essay discusses four fundamental and interpenetrating domains of feminist theory: representation, the body, identity, and activism, suggesting some critical inquiries that considering disability can generate within these theoretical arenas.
[...]
[Feminist disability studies] situates the disability experience in the context of rights and exclusions. It aspires to retrieve dismissed voices and misrepresented experiences. It helps us understand the intricate relation between bodies and selves. It illuminates the social processes of identity formation. It aims to denaturalize disability. In short, feminist disability studies reimagines disability.”
[...]
The nature of the problems faced by disabled women are such that they need to be addressed by both the feminist and disability movements. But the fact is that they remain invisible within the women's movement at large.
[...]
The author examines disability from the perspective of disabled women. She focuses on the social model of disability rather than a medical model and asserts that disability is another form of oppression experienced by women. She argues that disabled women have been excluded from both the women's movement, which is oriented toward non-disabled women, and from the disability rights movement, which is oriented toward disabled men. Using the history of black feminism, the author argues for a reframing of the analysis in which to explore the simultaneous experiences of gender and disability.
[...]
Disabled women activists have, however, been equally critical of the failure of mainstream feminism to recognise the disability perspective.
[...]
the incompleteness of feminism without the inclusion of a disability perspective.
[...]
The author discusses her anger and frustration with feminism in two ways: first, that disability is generally invisible from feminism's mainstream agenda, and second, that when disability is a subject of research by feminists, the researchers objectify disabled people so that the research is alienated from their experiences rather than attempting to understand the experiences of disabled women.
[...]
[she] calls on nondisabled as well as disabled researchers to continue to study the ways in which the nondisabled society oppresses its members with disabilities. Lastly, she argues that disability research is of great importance in the general understanding of the perpetuation of inequalities in society.
[...]
leading activists explore the ways feminism can and must acknowledge disabled women for the benefit of all. Revealing the ways in which disabled women have been rendered nearly invisible, it shatters received feminist wisdom on a wide range of core issues. Offering cogent evidence of the many ways in which disabled women's experiences would revitalize feminism today, Encounters with Strangers makes an invaluable contribution to a more inclusive understanding of disability rights, outlining how new and vital alliances may be achieved.
[...]
Unfortunately, little research has been conducted on this issue as it effects the lives of women with disabilities, which may reflect the belief that the lived experiences of many women with disabilities are not important nor perceived as valid by mainstream researchers.
[...]
It is part of my work as a nondisabled feminist to interrogate my own ablism and to look for the opportunities disability analysis provides for fuller theorizing and activism.
[...]
Disabled women's issues, experiences, and embodiments have been misunderstood, if not largely ignored, by feminist as well as mainstream disability theorists.
[...]
Beginning as separate enterprises that followed activist and scholarly paths, gender and disability studies have reached a point where they can move beyond their boundaries for a common landscape to inspire new areas of inquiry.
[...]
the cross section of oppressions that is created when a woman is black or a lesbian is much more mediated than the cross section of oppressions created when a woman is also disabled.
[...]
one of first articles reporting on the exclusion of women with disabilities from the “mainstream” women’s movement,
[...]
feminist critiques of these norms have virtually ignored the pressures on women who do not have full use of their bodies.
[...]
by arguing that the myth of bodily perfection and appearance norms which deny the experiences of disabled women contribute to the denial of disability and therefore are oppressive.
[...]
One group, however, continues to remains mostly invisible in feminist research; disabled women. Disabled and non-disabled feminists have expressed their deep concerns that the voices of disabled women have been missing in most feminist texts so their lives are unknown, their contributions unrecognized and the effects of social discrimination and inequality in their lives ignored.
[...]
We need a feminist theory of disability, both because 16 percent of women are disabled, and because the oppression of disabled people is closely linked to the cultural oppression of the body. Disability is not a biological given; like gender, it is socially constructed from biological reality. Our culture idealizes the body and demands that we control it. Thus, although most people will be disabled at some time in their lives, the disabled are made "the other," who symbolize failure of control and the threat of pain, limitation, dependency, and death. If disabled people and their knowledge were fully integrated into society, everyone's relation to her/his real body would be liberated.
[...]
feminist theory has neglected to incorporate the perspectives and experiences of women with disabilities, and that these perspectives must be included in future discussions of feminist ethics, the body, and the social critique of the medical model.
Disability Rights are a feminist issue because women know what it’s like to be infantalized and treated as lesser people. And we should know damn by well that it isn’t right. Not for us, and not for anybody.
Self-Harm and Medical Treatment
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), in 2004 issued some guidelines on
The short-term physical and psychological management and secondary prevention of self-harm in primary and secondary care
These include instructions such as,
People who have self-harmed should be treated with the
same care, respect and privacy as any patient. In addition,
healthcare professionals should take full account of the
likely distress associated with self-harm.
[...]
•
If a person who has self-harmed has to wait for treatment,
he or she should be offered an environment that is safe,
supportive and minimises any distress. For many patients,
this may be a separate, quiet room with supervision and
regular contact with a named member of staff to ensure
safety.
[...]
•
Always treat people with care and respect.
[...]
•
Take full account of the likely distress associated with
self-harm.
•
Offer the choice of male or female staff for assessment and
treatment. If it is not possible to give people a choice, explain
why and write it in their notes.
•
Always ask the service user to explain in their own words why
they have self-harmed. Remember, when people
self-harm often, the reason for each act may be different on
each occasion; don’t assume it’s done for the same reasons.
•
Involve the service user in clinical decision-making and provide
information about treatment options.
[...]
•
Always offer necessary physical treatments even if the person
doesn’t want psychosocial or psychiatric assessment.
•
Always use proper anaesthesia and/or analgesia if treatment
for self-injury is painful.
•
Offer sedation if treatment may evoke distressing memories
of previous sexual abuse, such as when repairing harm to the
genital area.
[...]
• Don’t delay treatment because it is self-inflicted.
There is an awful lot of info in the report, but some of the pertinent points I have listed above.
I have heard endless stories of people in A&E being refused stitches to a self-injury cut, on the basis that 'You've got so many scars already, one more won't make a difference', or 'There's no point - you'll only do it again'. Similarly with people who have been refused anaesthetic before being stitched or having other painful treatments.
These situations appall me. People who have caused their own injuries deserve just as good (physical and psychological) care as those whose injuries were accidental or caused by others. People do not self-harm for no reason - it almost always occurs within a context of intense distress and desperation, and can frequently prevent the person from further harm (for example, suicide attempts) by releasing some of the pressure before it boils over.
People who need treatment for self-harm injuries are likely to be feeling dreadful, full of their own inner guilt for needing treatment, and very possibly feeling quite vulnerable. They do not need doctors or nurses or ambulance staff to reinforce their own feelings of self-hatred or to imply that they are wasting people's time.
I cannot talk for everyone who self-harms, and I also do not want to downplay the incredible sensitive and appropriate treatment offered by many medical staff. There are people who self-harm who won't relate at all to what I say, and there are doctors, nurses and ambulance staff who do brilliant work. There's no doubt about that.
However some people are treated appallingly, and this only leads to the person who has self-harmed to feel even worse about themselves, and further self-harm feels more appealing because they have had all their worst fears and feelings confirmed.
So, where am I going with this?
Well, there are cases of blatantly bad treatment (being refused stitches when they are needed, not using local anaesthetic where it normally would be used, derogatory comments by staff etc.), and these are easy to criticise. But there are also many, many occasions when someone who has self-harmed gets bad-mediocre treatment, but it is hard to know what the motivation behind the not-really-caring is.
I needed treatment the last couple of weeks for a burn. I went to a GP, who asked the Practice Nurse to dress it. The nurse's treatment was, well, lukewarm to say the least. She dressed the burn very badly - using inadequate dressings and suggested no follow-up at all. I needed to go back 2 days later because of the state of the dressing and the injury and although she dressed the injury better than the first time, it was still very careless, unnecessarily painful and there was no plan for follow-up again.
I came out of both of these encounters very upset, especially the second one. I was spinning between 'I deserve better treatment than this' and 'Why on earth should I expect decent treatment? It's my own stupid fault anyway'. On top of that, I really didn't know whether the nurse didn't treat me well because my injury was self-inflicted, or whether she was actually just quite incompetent and not very interested in general.
I still don't know the answer to that, but the following week I saw a different nurse at the practice, who dealt with my injury competently, and was actually nice to me. It made a huge difference to how I felt when I left the surgery. I didn't feel full of self-hatred, full of self-loathing, full of self-directed anger.
I have that age-old double standard. I believe, without a doubt, that people who have self-harmed deserve and require treatment which is as good as people who have injuries which were accidental or caused by someone else. However, when it's *me*, I of course don't deserve a single nice word or a dressing which actually deals adequately with the wound. I am stupid and a waste of time, though noone else is!
I really don't know if I got sub-standard treatment because the nurse wasn't up to speed on burn dressings, or on 'bedside' manner, or whether it was because she didn't want to deal with a self-inflicted injury, or didn't think it deserved time and treatment, or indeed deal with someone who could self-injure.
All I know is that I came out of the appointment with the second nurse feeling much more positive and capable and listened to. I'm no expert on dressings, but even I knew that the first two were inadequate. I came out of those appointments feeling disgusting and loathsome.
I do believe that in terms of avoiding future self-harm, feeling positive and capable and listened to is certainly a better place to start!
Posts
All Comments
