[ News
| Homes
| Life
| Entertainment
| History
| Science
| Community
| Shop ]
| Sport
| Culture
| Cars
| Money
| Broadband
| Learning
| Health
| Dating
| Games ]
[ Text Only: Homepage ]
[ Graphical: Channel4 Homepage ]
• What's 'normal'?
• Definitions
• Disabled by another name...
Some people might think that this is a strange question. If you claim disability benefits because you can't hear, for example, aren't you disabled?
But there's a lot more to it than that. Would you recognise yourself from the government's definition of disability, which says that a person is disabled if they have a 'physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities'?
Do you think that your deafness gets in the way of 'normal day-to-day activities'? What do you think is 'normal'? Maybe it's all about how you see yourself, so it's up to you to decide whether you are disabled.
This week VEE-TV debates this subject. Matt Bones, a student at Preston University, who is deaf and has cerebral palsy, says it's partly a question of communication: 'Deaf people can communicate, and we've been labelled as "disabled", which means you can't do something. But we can communicate, so I disagree with being called "disabled".'
The Federation of Deaf People (FDP) says that it's a question of attitudes, circumstances and access. 'In theory, there is nothing stopping Deaf people from doing what they want. They do not have a problem with their deafness... they embrace their deafness.' However, 'When the normal deaf person is in an environment among hearing people who communicate through aural/oral mode, the deaf person is disabled because of the physical barriers and attitudes in that society.'
In the same way, a hearing person could be regarded as disabled in the Deaf community: 'If the non-BSL-using hearing person is placed among BSL-using deaf people, the hearing person is disabled because of the physical barriers and attitudes in that society.'
In our debate, Jacqueline Barnes-Jones points out that everyone is 'disabled' in some way. 'For example, someone who looks fine, who can hear, see, smell, who seems perfect, but can't conceive – does that mean they're disabled, because they can't produce a baby?' she asks. Similarly, people with poor eyesight might have a problem doing everyday things without glasses, and no one calls them 'disabled'.
So perhaps the problem is with definitions. Kris Burns says: 'I think we are disabled, but in a different way – not physical, but sensory, like touch, smell, taste, hearing and sight.' Jacqueline thinks of 'disability' as 'a term for someone who has physical access problems, like needing a wheelchair, using ramps and so on.' She says the problem for deaf people is language access: 'I can't access society without an interpreter or a visual translation. Being disabled is something different... I prefer not to be labelled "disabled", but "deaf", because there's nothing wrong with me.'
Unlike Jacqueline, Kris doesn't have a problem with the word 'disabled' – he thinks deaf people should accept their disability as a fact. He says his friends told him they think blind people and people in wheelchairs are disabled, not deaf people. When he asked why, 'Their answer was blind people are disabled because they can't see; wheelchair people are disabled because they can't walk. I think it's weird that deaf people are not disabled people when they can't hear!' And if they don't think they're disabled, he asks, 'Why do deaf people claim benefits like DLA and SDA? DLA stands for Disability Living Allowance. SDA stands for Severe Disability Allowance.'
'The "D" in "DLA" should be changed to "Deaf",' says Jacqueline. 'I still have problems finding interpreters – you don't get them automatically and they can be expensive. Social services don't always provide equipment for the home – flashing lights, vibrating alarms – so I have to use my DLA to pay for them.'
In other words, it's a question of access. 'If it was the perfect world,' Jacqueline says, 'and everything was accessible for all so-called "disabilities" – ramps, interpreters – then of course we wouldn't claim DLA, because everything would be accessible.'
So if the word 'disabled' were changed to something else, would everyone be happy? Probably not.
Matt says: 'I think it's better to use "special needs". It's used a lot by other people and I prefer that term, as it is nicer than "disabled". "Disabled"' is so negative.'
Jacqueline isn't keen. 'I find "special needs" patronising,' she says. 'It attracts sympathy.'
So, no consensus in the studio. But what do you think? Let us know on the message board.
Graphic version
Includes layout and images.