SAB Meeting Update: Disability 101

Last Monday I attended the SAB meeting and there was a presentation called Disability 101 presented by Disability Advocacy Student Alliance (DASA) and the Student Disability Commissioner. They engaged the members of SAB in teaching some of the more politically correct terms to use around people with disabilities, which is well and good.

What I found more interesting is that they briefly explained the rhetoric behind how society has treated disability. Three models: Moral, Medical, Social. These models are chronologically ordered - past, present, and future.

The moral model is the claim that disabilities were due to something that the parents did wrong, or that their child is "touched" by a demon or something outrageous like that.

The medical model claims that disabilities are the inability of a person to conform to the norm. This is better in that it calls for treatment for the disabilities, but it is condescending in assuming that people with disabilities must strive to be "normal".

The social model turns the problem on its head - the disability is then that society fails to accomodate those with impairments. In this model is the idea that impaired peoples don't want to be viewed as broken, but that they just want to be viewed as different than the "statistical norm". Meaning that they don't have to live up to the same standards and thus it would be unjust for someone who is not in their position of impairment to force norms on them.

At the end they mentioned eugenics, or in some ways improving the human race by the elimination of disabilities through medical means, such as genetic engineering to eliminate autism. But the question would be why? I can understand if impaired peoples were being forced to get rid of something that defines who they are - identities, much like if someone asked a Filipino American that given the choice of being born white, would they?

Moreover, certain explanations of eugenics suggest the "designer baby" idea. My question is: the elimination of disabilities is well and good, as long as the recieving party is willing. But modifying a child's genes to conform to a standard defined by their parents - is that right? Is it right to "play God" or conform a child to a certain standard before they are even born? In my opinion, the answer is no.

Concluding Thoughts

What do you think about what we have gone over today?

Do you feel like this is leading us in a certain direction, towards any particular issues?

Do you know of any worthwhile news sources about the Philippines, Filipinos, or Fil-Ams?