Re: Being disabled...

March 28, 2006

,

Merriam-Webster gives the following as a definition for " disabled " :

disable 4 entries found for *disable*.

To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: *dis·able*

<javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?disabl01.wav=disable')>

Pronunciation: di-'sA-b & l, di-'zA-

Function: *transitive verb*

Inflected Form(s): *dis·abled*; *dis·abling*

<javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?disabl02.wav=disabling')> /

-b( & -)li[ng]/

*1* *:* to deprive of legal right, qualification, or capacity

*2* *:* to make incapable or ineffective; *especially* *:* to deprive of

physical, moral, or intellectual strength

I think unless those scars, etc, keep you from doing something or make you

incapable or ineffective at doing some *thing*, then I wouldn't consider

them a " disability " . They can be painful emotionally, I would say, if

people were getting teased or ridiculed, left out, or otherwise ostracized

because of them. I would not, however, classify them (in my opinion only!)

as a disability, although nothing is ever black & white; there are always

shades of grey, particularly with discussions and debates on topics like

these.

March 28, 2006

,

Merriam-Webster gives the following as a definition for " disabled " :

disable 4 entries found for *disable*.

To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: *dis·able*

<javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?disabl01.wav=disable')>

Pronunciation: di-'sA-b & l, di-'zA-

Function: *transitive verb*

Inflected Form(s): *dis·abled*; *dis·abling*

<javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?disabl02.wav=disabling')> /

-b( & -)li[ng]/

*1* *:* to deprive of legal right, qualification, or capacity

*2* *:* to make incapable or ineffective; *especially* *:* to deprive of

physical, moral, or intellectual strength

I think unless those scars, etc, keep you from doing something or make you

incapable or ineffective at doing some *thing*, then I wouldn't consider

them a " disability " . They can be painful emotionally, I would say, if

people were getting teased or ridiculed, left out, or otherwise ostracized

because of them. I would not, however, classify them (in my opinion only!)

as a disability, although nothing is ever black & white; there are always

shades of grey, particularly with discussions and debates on topics like

these.

March 28, 2006

,

Merriam-Webster gives the following as a definition for " disabled " :

disable 4 entries found for *disable*.

To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: *dis·able*

<javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?disabl01.wav=disable')>

Pronunciation: di-'sA-b & l, di-'zA-

Function: *transitive verb*

Inflected Form(s): *dis·abled*; *dis·abling*

<javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?disabl02.wav=disabling')> /

-b( & -)li[ng]/

*1* *:* to deprive of legal right, qualification, or capacity

*2* *:* to make incapable or ineffective; *especially* *:* to deprive of

physical, moral, or intellectual strength

I think unless those scars, etc, keep you from doing something or make you

incapable or ineffective at doing some *thing*, then I wouldn't consider

them a " disability " . They can be painful emotionally, I would say, if

people were getting teased or ridiculed, left out, or otherwise ostracized

because of them. I would not, however, classify them (in my opinion only!)

as a disability, although nothing is ever black & white; there are always

shades of grey, particularly with discussions and debates on topics like

these.

March 28, 2006

,

then does that constiture a socially disableing factor?

just thinking out loud

Cole

ps yes i know i spelled disableing wrong... couldn't figure out how to spell

it

>

> ,

> Merriam-Webster gives the following as a definition for " disabled " :

> disable 4 entries found for *disable*.

> To select an entry, click on it.

> Main Entry: *dis·able*

> <javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?disabl01.wav=disable')>

> Pronunciation: di-'sA-b & l, di-'zA-

> Function: *transitive verb*

> Inflected Form(s): *dis·abled*; *dis·abling*

> <javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?disabl02.wav=disabling')> /

> -b( & -)li[ng]/

> *1* *:* to deprive of legal right, qualification, or capacity

> *2* *:* to make incapable or ineffective; *especially* *:* to deprive of

> physical, moral, or intellectual strength

>

> I think unless those scars, etc, keep you from doing something or make you

> incapable or ineffective at doing some *thing*, then I wouldn't consider

> them a " disability " . They can be painful emotionally, I would say, if

> people were getting teased or ridiculed, left out, or otherwise ostracized

> because of them. I would not, however, classify them (in my opinion

> only!)

> as a disability, although nothing is ever black & white; there are always

> shades of grey, particularly with discussions and debates on topics like

> these.

>

March 28, 2006

,

then does that constiture a socially disableing factor?

just thinking out loud

Cole

ps yes i know i spelled disableing wrong... couldn't figure out how to spell

it

>

> ,

> Merriam-Webster gives the following as a definition for " disabled " :

> disable 4 entries found for *disable*.

> To select an entry, click on it.

> Main Entry: *dis·able*

> <javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?disabl01.wav=disable')>

> Pronunciation: di-'sA-b & l, di-'zA-

> Function: *transitive verb*

> Inflected Form(s): *dis·abled*; *dis·abling*

> <javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?disabl02.wav=disabling')> /

> -b( & -)li[ng]/

> *1* *:* to deprive of legal right, qualification, or capacity

> *2* *:* to make incapable or ineffective; *especially* *:* to deprive of

> physical, moral, or intellectual strength

>

> I think unless those scars, etc, keep you from doing something or make you

> incapable or ineffective at doing some *thing*, then I wouldn't consider

> them a " disability " . They can be painful emotionally, I would say, if

> people were getting teased or ridiculed, left out, or otherwise ostracized

> because of them. I would not, however, classify them (in my opinion

> only!)

> as a disability, although nothing is ever black & white; there are always

> shades of grey, particularly with discussions and debates on topics like

> these.

>

March 28, 2006

I guess they could be considered socially disabilng factors; however, I

think the whole debate is extremely subjective and it would be hard to

conduct any empirical research into it. It's more of an " in the eye of the

beholder " type of thing in my opinion.

>

> ,

> then does that constiture a socially disableing factor?

> just thinking out loud

> Cole

> ps yes i know i spelled disableing wrong... couldn't figure out how to

> spell

> it

>

> --

> Weir

> kawfolks@...

> http://ca.geocities.com/weirfamilyrogers

March 28, 2006

I guess they could be considered socially disabilng factors; however, I

think the whole debate is extremely subjective and it would be hard to

conduct any empirical research into it. It's more of an " in the eye of the

beholder " type of thing in my opinion.

>

> ,

> then does that constiture a socially disableing factor?

> just thinking out loud

> Cole

> ps yes i know i spelled disableing wrong... couldn't figure out how to

> spell

> it

>

> --

> Weir

> kawfolks@...

> http://ca.geocities.com/weirfamilyrogers

March 28, 2006

Oh goodness, I just spelled disabling wrong - oops, I said " disabilng "

.....oooo.... as an English major, I could be condemned for that type of

thing. HA HA...

>

> I guess they could be considered socially disabilng factors; however, I

> think the whole debate is extremely subjective and it would be hard to

> conduct any empirical research into it. It's more of an " in the eye of the

> beholder " type of thing in my opinion.

>

> > ,

> then does that constiture a socially disableing factor?

> just thinking out loud

> Cole

> ps yes i know i spelled disableing wrong... couldn't figure out how to

> spell

> it

>

March 28, 2006

i can definitely agree with that.... um... how's the right way to spell it?

i can't seem to figure it out

>

> Oh goodness, I just spelled disabling wrong - oops, I said " disabilng "

> ....oooo.... as an English major, I could be condemned for that type of

> thing. HA HA...

>

> >

> > I guess they could be considered socially disabilng factors; however, I

> > think the whole debate is extremely subjective and it would be hard to

> > conduct any empirical research into it. It's more of an " in the eye of

> the

> > beholder " type of thing in my opinion.

> >

>

> >

> > > ,

> > then does that constiture a socially disableing factor?

> > just thinking out loud

> > Cole

> > ps yes i know i spelled disableing wrong... couldn't figure out how to

> > spell

> > it

> >

>

March 28, 2006

i can definitely agree with that.... um... how's the right way to spell it?

i can't seem to figure it out

>

> Oh goodness, I just spelled disabling wrong - oops, I said " disabilng "

> ....oooo.... as an English major, I could be condemned for that type of

> thing. HA HA...

>

> >

> > I guess they could be considered socially disabilng factors; however, I

> > think the whole debate is extremely subjective and it would be hard to

> > conduct any empirical research into it. It's more of an " in the eye of

> the

> > beholder " type of thing in my opinion.

> >

>

> >

> > > ,

> > then does that constiture a socially disableing factor?

> > just thinking out loud

> > Cole

> > ps yes i know i spelled disableing wrong... couldn't figure out how to

> > spell

> > it

> >

>

March 28, 2006

i can definitely agree with that.... um... how's the right way to spell it?

i can't seem to figure it out

>

> Oh goodness, I just spelled disabling wrong - oops, I said " disabilng "

> ....oooo.... as an English major, I could be condemned for that type of

> thing. HA HA...

>

> >

> > I guess they could be considered socially disabilng factors; however, I

> > think the whole debate is extremely subjective and it would be hard to

> > conduct any empirical research into it. It's more of an " in the eye of

> the

> > beholder " type of thing in my opinion.

> >

>

> >

> > > ,

> > then does that constiture a socially disableing factor?

> > just thinking out loud

> > Cole

> > ps yes i know i spelled disableing wrong... couldn't figure out how to

> > spell

> > it

> >

>

March 28, 2006

-

I am not sure where this definition comes from, but I think it may

be part of the Americans with Disabilities Act that defines a

disability as something that impacts more than one functional aspect

of daily life. If the physical anomalies do not have an impact on

vision, hearing, speech or feeding, then I do not think a person who

possesses them as being disabled.

In Physical Therapy school, we learned to classify the disablement

process. The model that is endorsed by the American Physical

Therapy Association is the Nagi model of disablement. It looks at

the relationship between the four levels of active pathology,

impairment, functional limitation and disability.

Active pathology is defined as interferance or interruption in

normal processes, and efforts of the organism to regain a normal

state.

Impairment is loss or abnormality of physiological or

psychological or anatomic structure or function at the organ level.

Functional limitation is a limitation in performance at the level

of the whole person or organism.

Disability is limitation in performance of socially defined roles

and tasks within a sociocultural and physical environment.

In the example you gave about clipped ears, that would be an

abnormality of anatomic structure, which would be classified as an

impairment. In a very very far stretch, the person could be

considered disabled if they desired to be an ear model, since

current culture would not accept a clipped ear as a " perfect

model. " I am REALLY stretching this for argument sake. In terms of

taking care of self and family, and working (which are the typical

things considered when assessing disability), I would not think that

these qualify the person as being disabled.

To look at this in another way. Reeve still received

some movie roles after being paralyzed. In that sense, his

pathology (physical injury and death of spinal cord cells) led to

his impairments (paralysis, lack of sensation, lack of bowel and

bladder control). This created a lot of functional limitations

(inability to walk, bathe self, feed self, drive car, ride horses,

etc). However, in terms of his career, he was NOT disabled, as he

was still able to perform his work, so that sociocultural aspect was

not impacted. Obviously, there were other impacts upon his life, so

he was considered disabled.

I hope this was not confusing. There is always more than one

perspective to any situation. Good luck with your debate!!

Kate (PT)

March 28, 2006

-

I am not sure where this definition comes from, but I think it may

be part of the Americans with Disabilities Act that defines a

disability as something that impacts more than one functional aspect

of daily life. If the physical anomalies do not have an impact on

vision, hearing, speech or feeding, then I do not think a person who

possesses them as being disabled.

In Physical Therapy school, we learned to classify the disablement

process. The model that is endorsed by the American Physical

Therapy Association is the Nagi model of disablement. It looks at

the relationship between the four levels of active pathology,

impairment, functional limitation and disability.

Active pathology is defined as interferance or interruption in

normal processes, and efforts of the organism to regain a normal

state.

Impairment is loss or abnormality of physiological or

psychological or anatomic structure or function at the organ level.

Functional limitation is a limitation in performance at the level

of the whole person or organism.

Disability is limitation in performance of socially defined roles

and tasks within a sociocultural and physical environment.

In the example you gave about clipped ears, that would be an

abnormality of anatomic structure, which would be classified as an

impairment. In a very very far stretch, the person could be

considered disabled if they desired to be an ear model, since

current culture would not accept a clipped ear as a " perfect

model. " I am REALLY stretching this for argument sake. In terms of

taking care of self and family, and working (which are the typical

things considered when assessing disability), I would not think that

these qualify the person as being disabled.

To look at this in another way. Reeve still received

some movie roles after being paralyzed. In that sense, his

pathology (physical injury and death of spinal cord cells) led to

his impairments (paralysis, lack of sensation, lack of bowel and

bladder control). This created a lot of functional limitations

(inability to walk, bathe self, feed self, drive car, ride horses,

etc). However, in terms of his career, he was NOT disabled, as he

was still able to perform his work, so that sociocultural aspect was

not impacted. Obviously, there were other impacts upon his life, so

he was considered disabled.

I hope this was not confusing. There is always more than one

perspective to any situation. Good luck with your debate!!

Kate (PT)

March 28, 2006

-

I am not sure where this definition comes from, but I think it may

be part of the Americans with Disabilities Act that defines a

disability as something that impacts more than one functional aspect

of daily life. If the physical anomalies do not have an impact on

vision, hearing, speech or feeding, then I do not think a person who

possesses them as being disabled.

In Physical Therapy school, we learned to classify the disablement

process. The model that is endorsed by the American Physical

Therapy Association is the Nagi model of disablement. It looks at

the relationship between the four levels of active pathology,

impairment, functional limitation and disability.

Active pathology is defined as interferance or interruption in

normal processes, and efforts of the organism to regain a normal

state.

Impairment is loss or abnormality of physiological or

psychological or anatomic structure or function at the organ level.

Functional limitation is a limitation in performance at the level

of the whole person or organism.

Disability is limitation in performance of socially defined roles

and tasks within a sociocultural and physical environment.

In the example you gave about clipped ears, that would be an

abnormality of anatomic structure, which would be classified as an

impairment. In a very very far stretch, the person could be

considered disabled if they desired to be an ear model, since

current culture would not accept a clipped ear as a " perfect

model. " I am REALLY stretching this for argument sake. In terms of

taking care of self and family, and working (which are the typical

things considered when assessing disability), I would not think that

these qualify the person as being disabled.

To look at this in another way. Reeve still received

some movie roles after being paralyzed. In that sense, his

pathology (physical injury and death of spinal cord cells) led to

his impairments (paralysis, lack of sensation, lack of bowel and

bladder control). This created a lot of functional limitations

(inability to walk, bathe self, feed self, drive car, ride horses,

etc). However, in terms of his career, he was NOT disabled, as he

was still able to perform his work, so that sociocultural aspect was

not impacted. Obviously, there were other impacts upon his life, so

he was considered disabled.

I hope this was not confusing. There is always more than one

perspective to any situation. Good luck with your debate!!

Kate (PT)

March 28, 2006

well in my opion charge is my disability it disables me coz of my hearing

affects m balance there are many factors that make me disabled but im also

physicaly able to lol

>

> Hey everyone.

>

> I have an interesting debate I would like to take to the list for your

> input. My friend and I were having quite an enlightening debate on whether

> or not PHYSICAL characteristics would be consider a persons disability.

> For

> example, in CHARGE this may include scars from a cleft palate, snipped

> ear,

> smaller eye and so on. This would NOT include any conditions such as

> visual

> or hearing impairments. Would you consider the physical characteristics of

> CHARGE a disability on its own?Why or why not? I'm not sharing my opinion

> on

> this of yet. I would like to hear some views first.

>

> Nieder

> CHARGE Adult

>

> CHARGE SYNDROME LISTSERV PHOTO PAGE:

> http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=2117043995

>

> Membership of this email support group does not constitute membership in

> the CHARGE Syndrome Foundation; for information about the CHARGE Syndrome

> Foundation or to become a member (and get the newsletter),

> please contact marion@... or visit

> the web site at http://www.chargesyndrome.org

>

> 8th International

> CHARGE Syndrome Conference, July, 2007. Information will be available at

> www.chargesyndrome.org or by calling 1-.

>

March 28, 2006

well in my opion charge is my disability it disables me coz of my hearing

affects m balance there are many factors that make me disabled but im also

physicaly able to lol

>

> Hey everyone.

>

> I have an interesting debate I would like to take to the list for your

> input. My friend and I were having quite an enlightening debate on whether

> or not PHYSICAL characteristics would be consider a persons disability.

> For

> example, in CHARGE this may include scars from a cleft palate, snipped

> ear,

> smaller eye and so on. This would NOT include any conditions such as

> visual

> or hearing impairments. Would you consider the physical characteristics of

> CHARGE a disability on its own?Why or why not? I'm not sharing my opinion

> on

> this of yet. I would like to hear some views first.

>

> Nieder

> CHARGE Adult

>

> CHARGE SYNDROME LISTSERV PHOTO PAGE:

> http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=2117043995

>

> Membership of this email support group does not constitute membership in

> the CHARGE Syndrome Foundation; for information about the CHARGE Syndrome

> Foundation or to become a member (and get the newsletter),

> please contact marion@... or visit

> the web site at http://www.chargesyndrome.org

>

> 8th International

> CHARGE Syndrome Conference, July, 2007. Information will be available at

> www.chargesyndrome.org or by calling 1-.

>

March 28, 2006

well in my opion charge is my disability it disables me coz of my hearing

affects m balance there are many factors that make me disabled but im also

physicaly able to lol

>

> Hey everyone.

>

> I have an interesting debate I would like to take to the list for your

> input. My friend and I were having quite an enlightening debate on whether

> or not PHYSICAL characteristics would be consider a persons disability.

> For

> example, in CHARGE this may include scars from a cleft palate, snipped

> ear,

> smaller eye and so on. This would NOT include any conditions such as

> visual

> or hearing impairments. Would you consider the physical characteristics of

> CHARGE a disability on its own?Why or why not? I'm not sharing my opinion

> on

> this of yet. I would like to hear some views first.

>

> Nieder

> CHARGE Adult

>

> CHARGE SYNDROME LISTSERV PHOTO PAGE:

> http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=2117043995

>

> Membership of this email support group does not constitute membership in

> the CHARGE Syndrome Foundation; for information about the CHARGE Syndrome

> Foundation or to become a member (and get the newsletter),

> please contact marion@... or visit

> the web site at http://www.chargesyndrome.org

>

> 8th International

> CHARGE Syndrome Conference, July, 2007. Information will be available at

> www.chargesyndrome.org or by calling 1-.

>

March 28, 2006

disalbed to me means inability to do soemthing so inability to hear see or

walk properly but a feature liek palate or facial palsy inst a disability

its a freature or charge its part of the main disability if that makes sence

i know im not making sence i never do lol i believe oru government bodies

need to look into these courrse they dotn understand physical disabled they

only understand interlecutal theres this new tender in aus being processed

meaning that places like northoctt who do comunity participation one to one

have to do mroe centre based outcomes and not woring mroe than six hours now

you see none of these would benifit me im able to wrok the days i do nine to

three no longer but i can work more than six hors a week this is where i see

they all fall down this tender states apparently that centre based activites

is better now tahts for interlectual but physicaly geroup based isnt the bes

we need other things mum is writing to have this over turned and will update

you all on this but it ads to more of this debate and more of my things argh

>

> well in my opion charge is my disability it disables me coz of my hearing

> affects m balance there are many factors that make me disabled but im also

> physicaly able to lol

>

> >

> > Hey everyone.

> >

> > I have an interesting debate I would like to take to the list for your

> > input. My friend and I were having quite an enlightening debate on

> > whether

> > or not PHYSICAL characteristics would be consider a persons disability.

> > For

> > example, in CHARGE this may include scars from a cleft palate, snipped

> > ear,

> > smaller eye and so on. This would NOT include any conditions such as

> > visual

> > or hearing impairments. Would you consider the physical characteristics

> > of

> > CHARGE a disability on its own?Why or why not? I'm not sharing my

> > opinion on

> > this of yet. I would like to hear some views first.

> >

> > Nieder

> > CHARGE Adult

> >

> > CHARGE SYNDROME LISTSERV PHOTO PAGE:

> > http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=2117043995

> >

> > Membership of this email support group does not constitute membership in

> > the CHARGE Syndrome Foundation; for information about the CHARGE Syndrome

> > Foundation or to become a member (and get the newsletter),

> > please contact marion@... or visit

> > the web site at http://www.chargesyndrome.org

> >

> > 8th International

> > CHARGE Syndrome Conference, July, 2007. Information will be available at

> > www.chargesyndrome.org or by calling 1-.

> >

March 28, 2006