The Social and Medical Model of Disability
To what admeasurement does legislation apropos to affliction abutment the amusing model? And to what admeasurement does it still reflect a medical archetypal of understanding?
This abstraction will altercate the admeasurement of which legislation in affiliation to affliction sustains the amusing archetypal and to what admeasurement it contemplates a medical archetypal of understanding. This will be in the ambience of accordant sources including, accustomed government legislation. This will be in affiliation to Education, alms and admission to appurtenances and services. In addition, based on research, the allegation will be summarised and a cessation will be provided.
There are assorted models of affliction that accept been authentic over antecedent years; two of the best amount are the medical (Elkins 2009) and amusing archetypal of affliction (Giddens 2010). There are assorted models of affliction that accept been authentic over antecedent years; two in accurate actuality the medical and amusing archetypal of disability. The moral archetypal of affliction refers to affliction as a aftereffect of sin whilst the medical model, on the another hand, refers to affliction as an affliction which needs analysis through adapted medical interventions (DDA, 2005). The affliction archetypal refers to the absolutism attitude of the professionals, bereft casework of abutment from society, assorted kinds of attitudinal, acoustic and cerebral barriers in the affliction association as a generalised area of citizenry adverse difficulties in apprenticeship services, application and admission to servcies (Barnes et al., 1999).
The medical archetypal angle affliction as a ‘problem’ aural the disabled alone with the best accent actuality alone placed on their ‘impairment’ as adjoin to any amusing or ecology influences. This in about-face presents with the abstraction that bodies who accept a affliction can be cured, such that, association angle them as ‘normal’. This ‘normality’ can be accomplished with the advice of medical intervention. The archetypal categorises alone altitude according to medical action which includes disabilities such as Absorption Arrears Hyperactivity Ataxia (ADHD), Epilepsy and Dyslexia In avant-garde society, the medical archetypal continues to appearance convenance and provision, yet additionally manages to actualize inequality, actuality subjected to abundant criticism for actuality ‘de-humanizing’ and abutting individuals as a ataxia and not as animal beings.
During the 20th aeon the medical archetypal became a ascendant archetype as to how bodies beheld disability. The archetypal is itself, based aloft acceptable understanding. This is added accurate by the British Film Institution (BFI 2012) comments;
‘During the aeon of the 18th aeon based on assessments of impairments from a arrears point of appearance adjoin normality: what one cannot do instead of what one can do”.
However a address by International Staff (2009, p.1) argues;
‘…the medical access to affliction is advantageous if it acclimated to abutment the absolute medical needs of disabled bodies and to advance their adeptness to action as apart as possible’.
In the 1960’s and 1970’s, abounding individuals who had a affliction began to catechism and challenged the actuality that they were actuality advised abnormally to others in association distinctively in educational institutions and assignment place. This in about-face presented with a backfire of criticism from supporters of the medical model. This advance to the alpha of the Affliction Rights Movement (Fleischer & Zames 2001), which gave individuals the befalling to accretion accepting and to defended according opportunities and according rights for all individuals with a disability. Additionally, the movement additionally gave bodies an another appearance to how they perceived affliction alleged the ‘social model’.
The history abaft the archetypal is due to the civil/human rights movements of the 1960’s (Degener & Koster-Dreese 1995). Their appearance became added added by the accumulation of the Union of the Physically Impaired adjoin Segregation (UPIAS) a affliction rights organisation who aired their own assessment on the issues begin in affliction (UPIAS 2012). In 1976 the UPIAS produced a certificate in acknowledgment to The Guardian’s press of a letter by Paul Hunt in 1972 (Shakespeare 1998), calling for the accumulation of a accumulation that would acquiesce the angle of disabled bodies themselves to be heard arch to the conception of the amusing model.
The amusing archetypal approaches affliction with a appearance that bodies that accept accurate incapacities, cannot action to the best of their adeptness and furthermore, how association perceives them overall. The amusing archetypal began to abolish barriers acceptance a adverse to analyze amid crime and disability. This in about-face accustomed some of the aspects that emerged from the medical archetypal to accommodate aural society; that is, accomplish some of the exclusionist ethics of disabilities to be ‘included’ aural the amusing world. The amusing archetypal works on a ample calibration and is afterwards in arrest abominable amusing structures and demonstrating our charge for civilian rights legislation.
The medical archetypal of affliction came in to actuality in the 19th aeon back the role of the physician became eminent aural society. Bodies with perceived disabilities were accustomed to accept account aural the medical directives. As per the medical model, the issues encountered by the disabled, due to their suffering, were perceived to be present aural them and appropriately any band-aid to the botheration back addressed would advance that the botheration could, in essence, aloof disappear. The added association believed that there was no albatross for them to creating amplitude for the disabled aural their amusing worlds, as anybody has their own issues of affair (Audit Commission, 2002).
The alone is advised as a ailing article aural the medical archetypal and are looked aloft by alien association associates as afar individuals, who are set chargeless of accustomed obligations of association which accommodate accessory education, demography up able assignment and demography up ancestors responsibilities. Furthermore, they are additionally accustomed added absorption with commendations to medical activity in an attack for the alone to be convalescent of the absolute disability. It can accordingly be assured in short, that affliction issues and associated behavior are admired as a amount of affair back accompanying with apprenticeship and casework of work. This is due to the actuality that bloom issues account physicians to be advised as primary action authorities (Burchardt, 2003).
Both the amusing and medical archetypal has strengths and weaknesses. In commendations to the amusing model, it aims to abolish barriers so that disabled individuals are accustomed the aforementioned opportunities as able people. This will accredit them to actuate their own aisle in life. Along Tom Shakespeare’s affiliate on the amusing archetypal (Shakespeare 1998) has appropriate that the issues individuals with disabilities face, are absolutely socially constructed. They face exclusion on a circadian base and therefore, it should be society’s albatross to animate admittance and to abolish the burdens placed on disadvantaged individuals to added acquiesce them to participate.
He added suggests that;
“…the amusing archetypal has been able psychologically by in convalescent the self-esteem of disabled bodies and architecture a absolute faculty of aggregate identity” (Shakespeare 1998, p.199).
However, the amusing archetypal has arise beneath scrutiny. Although it may accept afflicted the way bodies apperceive individuals with a disability, it still seems to abatement collapsed back it comes to abutting an individual’s absolute impairment. The archetypal has acerb abandoned medical and alone approaches to disabilities, that it is alpha to accident suggesting that crime is not a botheration altogether.
The medical archetypal additionally presents with a array of weaknesses. It is too codicillary on medical altitude per se and is absent with actuality able to cure bodies with a disability. This may aftereffect in low self-esteem for the alone with the disability, consistent in them analytic as to why they are not like others. However, with that actuality said, the archetypal additionally fails to recognise that bodies who are classed as disabled can accept the aforementioned opportunities as another bodies who are beheld as ‘normal’ by society.
It is aloof that they accept to acclimate and fit into association after actuality advised because of their disability. About the strengths of the archetypal are that although there is currently no cure for a ample array of disabilities, it is one of the alone methods actively gluttonous means for means for bodies get better. In today’s society, the medical archetypal influences the affliction accessible aldermanic policy, abnormally in agreement of our amusing aegis arrangement by area affliction is authentic as the affliction to booty up any affectionate of able work.
The medical archetypal acts as a foundation for assorted problems for bodies adversity from disabilities who are absorbed in work. This is due to a abhorrence of accident assorted accessible funds such as bloom affliction cover, amusing security, protection, allowances, claimed activity and home assignment casework if they are to alpha work. Numerous medical interventions are appropriate by disabled individuals due to their abiding medical altitude which cannot be convalescent instantly. However, disabled bodies are able of partaking in able assignment and aural association as a accomplished aloof as any another individual.
The entailing allowances of the medical archetypal about are capital and the convenance associated with the archetypal in affiliation to apprehension and institutionalization of the disabled alone is not accustomed by abounding amusing critics. Not to acknowledgment abounding subdivisions of the disabled individuals themselves (DfES, DH and DWP, 2007).
Alternatively, the affliction archetypal in agreement of legislation has developed stronger due to the angle of absolute rights for disabled individuals. The affliction archetypal in allegory to that of the medical or rehabilitation archetypal does not amusement individuals as ‘sick’ or butterfingers but treats their affliction as a accustomed angle of activity (Oliver, 2007). Analysis evidences additionally condemns that a affliction should be advised as a agency of aberancy as it degrades the moral account of the individual, and additionally makes them arise apathetic to the system. In addition, analysis additionally appear that the affliction archetypal identifies amusing bigotry as one of the best noteworthy issues faced by individuals and is anon amenable for another problems associated with another models. Researchers additionally focus that as per the analogue of affliction by the UN, ‘disability’ itself is admired as a amusing assemble by area bodies accept a added compassionate of what an absolute affliction is, back compared to ‘handicapped’ and ‘impairment’ (Goldstone, 2002).
To conclude, although there are abounding advantages and disadvantages which are specific to the about affliction archetypal discussed in detail in the antecedent sections, there is consistently a catechism which charcoal changing with commendations to how far these models are confined to account the disabled. Abounding analysis affidavit and arguments of sociologists accept been referred to and advised as a allotment of this article it has been articular that none of the articular disabled individuals brand to be advised as a abstracted ‘entity’ from association or as a discriminated alone (DfES, DH and DWP, 2007). All showed absorption to backpack on accustomed activities aural society. There is however, an all-embracing appropriate of acquisitiveness aural ‘society’ over assorted accoutrement of the government to abutment them. Abounding feared that they would lose the allowances if they alone to be accustomed antecedence beneath affliction abnormally as per the medical archetypal (Needels and Schmitz, 2006).
Overlooking the allowances of tagging themselves as disabled, the affliction archetypal as per UN analogue highlights that there are primary advantages which override credible disadvantages. This refers to actuality advised accustomed aural the association area the stigma and bigotry systems are aiming for eradication. Abutment has been rendered by best of the affliction activists in this angle to accept the cooperation of bodies adversity from airy disabilities (DCLG, 2006).
The supporters for this account accept that abandon from bigotry is not a affectionate of advantage which can be acquired partially or in alternate doses. Rather, it is a access of character to recognise one’s own characteristics and accurate capabilities abroad from the hidden allowances of the system. It allows one to analyze with facets of backbone and allows for a development of self-respect. Analysis additionally reveals that the capital account of bigotry for disabled individuals, abreast from the adversity disability, is the abasement and average captivated aural association appear affliction and the disabled (Hurstfield, 2007). It can accordingly be accursed that affliction is not the account for bigotry at all. It is the amusing elements created aural association appear affliction that is apparent as a absolute cause. To barrier this anti-social element, putting alternating the affliction archetypal in affiliation with the medical archetypal is an capital approach, alongside assertive amusing and acknowledged activities which intend to claiming the postulations and assumptions administering affliction discrimination. The primary cold in the approaching is to utilise the models of affliction as discussed aural this argument and to abate the stigma (DCLG, 2006). To serve the intention, abounding affliction rights movements and the utilisation of anytime accretion abstruse accoutrement present as essential, both as apparatus of advice and as added adjustment by which the disabled can alive in abundance (Oliver, 2007).
Anon, The “traditional model.” The history of attitudes to disabled people. Available at: http://attitudes2disability.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/the-traditional-model/ [Accessed April 26, 2012].
Audit Commission . 2002. Special educational needs: a boilerplate affair , London: Audit Commission.
Barnes, C., Mercer, G. and Shakespeare, T. 1999. Exploring disability: a sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
BFI, 2012. Disabling Imagery| Means of cerebration about disability: “Medical Model” vs “Social Model” | Acquirements resources| BFI. Available at: http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/teaching/disability/thinking/medical.html [Accessed April 26, 2012].
Burchardt, T. 2003. Actuality and becoming: amusing exclusion and the access of disability. CASE Address No. 21, London: Centre for the Analysis of Amusing Exclusion.
DCLG. 2006. Acknowledging independence: abutting accomplish in our Acknowledging Bodies strategy. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
Degener, T. & Koster-Dreese, Y., 1995. Animal Rights and Disabled Persons: Essays and Accordant Animal Rights Instruments, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
DfES, DH and DWP. 2007 . Progression through partnership”: a collective action amid the DfES, DH and DWP on the role of added apprenticeship and training in acknowledging bodies with acquirements difficulties and/or disabilities to accomplish accomplishing lives. London: DfES, DH and DWP.
Disability Bigotry Act. 2005. Affiliate 13, London: HMSO
Elkins, D.N., 2009. The Medical Archetypal in Psychotherapy Its Limitations and Failures. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 49(1), pp.66–84.
Fleischer, D.Z. & Zames, F., 2001. The Affliction Rights Movement: From Alms to Confrontation, Temple University Press.
Giddens, A., 2010. Sociology: Introductory Readings, Polity.
Goldstone, C., Meager, N. 2002. Barriers to application for disabled people. DWP In-house Analysis Address No. 95. London: DWP.
Hurstfield, J., Parashar, U. and Schofield, K. 2007. The costs and allowances of absolute living. London: ODI.
International Staff, 2009. Models of Disability257.pdf. Available at: http://www.internationalstaff.ac.uk/uploads/Models%20of%20Disability257.pdf [Accessed April 26, 2012].
Oliver, M. 2007. Affliction rights and wrongs. Affliction and Society. 22(2), p. 230–234.
Shakespeare, T., 1998. The Affliction Reader: Amusing Science Perspectives, Continuum International Publishing Group.
UPIAS, 2012. Homepage. Available at: http://www.gmcdp.com/UPIAS.html [Accessed April 26, 2012].
Order a unique copy of this paper