Bring it on! Disabled people don't need positive discrimination

I found it rather depressing to read comments from some disability charities, criticising Scope for not reserving the post of chief executive for a disabled candidate. One, Mary Colley, the voluntary coordinator of learning difficulties charity Danda, went so far as to suggest that: "It would be difficult for a non-disabled chief executive to understand the needs of disabled people"

Surely, we have moved beyond the apartheid model, where it is held that the needs of disabled people can only be understood by other disabled people? Because taken to its logical conclusion, we would be saying that only a wheelchair user can understand other wheelchair users, only a blind person can relate to other blind people, etc ad infinitum. Society would then be broken up into lots of little, introspective groups of individuals who only want to communicate with other people just like them.

Now that the DDA makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against a job candidate on the basis of an impairment, isn't it right that all the many talented applicants who happen also to be disabled, compete in a fair way with those who happen not to be?

Amarjit Raju, chief executive of Disability Direct, accuses Scope of traditionally having "a tokenistic approach to employing disabled people", but I suspect that anybody appointed to a position that they knew to have been specially reserved for a disabled person would feel very much "token". I applaud Alice Maynard, Scope's chair, for saying that their "priority is to find the right person for the job, and that person may or may not be disabled." The organisation wants to create an alliance between disabled and non-disabled people, and I suspect that most of us would endorse that as the sort of society we would like to live in, where our experiences as carers, friends, parents and colleagues are just as valid in enhancing quality of life and opportunity.

The truth is that every single one of us has faced some form of discrimination in our lives; each time we are rejected for a friendship, a sports team, a flatshare or a job, we experience the negative emotions associated with not being the chosen one. It is simply a part of life which we have to learn to deal with. Hopefully, it teaches us the valuable human quality of empathy, because that is what enables one person to understand the difficulties faced by another - not happening to share the same impairment.

 

 

Better Dead than Disabled?

I have just read a shocking survey, commissioned by Disaboom, which suggests that more than half of Americans would rather die than live with a serious disability.

The research also showed that more affluent and more educated people were more likely to choose death over disability than those with lower incomes and poorer standards of education.

What on earth does this say about the United States? What would the results of a similar survey in Britain show? There may be very few but a militant minority who would actually choose disability rather than life without an impairment, but death rather than life? When we are surrounded by so many examples of people living fantastic, fulfilling lives despite serious disabilities?

I may not agree with their current political leadership, or their attitude to other countries' ability to manage their own internal affairs, but I have always thought of Americans as the ultimate "can-do" citizens. These are the people who believe in selling or spending their way out of economic downturns; who pity us poor Brits for failing to capitalise on our wonderful inventions; the home of the superhero, where any achievements are hailed with admiration, rather than envy or embarrassment.

So why are so many of them apparently ready to wimp out when it comes to dealing with disability? Is this a reflection of their inadequate public healthcare system, a general ignorance of the possibilities of independent living, or something else altogether?

What do you think? If you are affected by disability, please add your comments here - anonymously if you prefer - and we can compare our entirely unscientific survey of Independent Living visitors with our cousins across the water!

 

 

Wheelchairs with folding wheels - what do you think?

An interesting new project came my way recently; a folding wheel - the Crossbreed - which is being developed by Duncan Fitzsimons at InnovationRCA, a product incubator unit at the Royal College of Art in London.

Initially designed for a bicycle, the Crossbreed wheel is now being adapted for wheelchairs, so that users can benefit from the easy manoeuvrability of large wheels with an integrated push rim, combined with the practicality of being able to fold the chair into a small package for transport and storage.

A wheelchair fitted with folding wheels could even allow a whole new type of wheelchair to be designed: one that can fold up into a small package similar to a golf bag in shape and size. This wheelchair could be as high performance as any other, yet fold up small enough to fit into an overhead locker on an airplane, wheels and all!

First models of this wheel will be made from carbon fibre composite, to meet the weight and stiffness requirements of the most demanding wheelchair users and Duncan hopes that these can be supplied at a cost which is as close as possible to non-folding high performance wheels. Further down the line he plans for a range of models to be made available for different budgets and performance needs.

You can find out more on the designer's website

What do you think about this idea? Is there room in the market for a wheelchair that folds much smaller than existing models? Or do you think that the current chairs with quick-release self-propelling wheels do a good enough job? Whatever your opinion, do please share it!

Piers Clough, an MBA student at Imperial College, has produced an online survey, to enable wheelchair users, carers and professionals to give their feedback. Click here to access it

 

 

In Sickness and in Health

I spend rather more time reading and listening to the radio these days, as my arms remain determined to pursue their status as redundant appendages, rather than reliable tools. I continue as editor of this website, using iListen, voice recognition software, which despite hiccups along the way, as we learned to accommodate each other's foibles, has now become an indispensable part of my working life. Although still not 100 percent reliable, the fact that it can make possible a job that formerly required hours of keyboard and mouse use, is a testament to the progress that has been made in this area.

And when I heard Alan Johnson, the health secretary, announcing that in future doctors should be issuing well notes, rather than sick notes, to encourage employers and employees alike to think about what people could do, rather than what they couldn't, my own situation seemed to provide an interesting illustration.

Almost certainly, if I had an employer, they would have stopped me working many months ago, when overuse of the computer first made my hands and arms too painful to continue. Rest is always the first prescribed treatment for repetitive strain injuries, and - perhaps also with an eye on some very large tribunal awards for work-related disabilities - responsible employers take no chances with the long-term well-being of their people.

But not having an employer, I don't have anyone telling me I mustn't work. Independent Living is my passion, and I'm not about to relinquish it.

So, rather as the government minister is recommending that occupational therapists should be assessing how much and what type of work someone can do when they have been ill, I have run a uniquely qualified eye over my own situation, and acquired the necessary tools to help me keep working. I am not as productive as I used to be - but given that high productivity almost certainly contributed to the problem, maybe that isn't so bad. And most importantly, instead of adding mental health problems of stress and depression to my woes, I do wake up most mornings, focused on what I can do, rather than what I can't.

 

 

Grasping the nettle of Incapacity Benefit

The government is planning to introduce a new test for incapacity benefit. Commentary from groups representing disabled people has been almost universally hostile, and there are no doubt very real fears that pressure may be put on vulnerable people to take a job when they are not really able to cope. People with mental health problems and certain conditions with symptoms of varying intensity are likely to be most affected.

Currently, some 2.64 million people receive incapacity benefit; a figure significantly augmented by unspoken government policy over the years to keep unemployment figures at a respectable level by encouraging greater take up of incapacity benefit. In areas where jobs are in short supply, it is not unknown for as many as one in five of the working age population to be in receipt of this benefit.

Clearly, this nettle had to be grasped, and the government has been promising to do so for some time. I find the principle of introducing a test that focuses on what an individual can do, rather than what they can't, wholly admirable. It is surely right to work from a presumption of ability, rather than adopting a patronising attitude that people with disabilities are unable to make a contribution.

Since the Disability Discrimination Act became law, we have seen attitudes slowly changing. Businesses are much more aware of the needs of disabled consumers, and while the situation is far from perfect, it is significantly easier now for individuals with a range of impairments to access goods and services without a struggle. Places of work and education are required not to discriminate on the grounds of disability - if we make the case, rightly, to employers that disabled people have a lot to offer, surely we must apply the same criteria to judging the capabilities of an individual who is currently not in work.

All the research shows that people who work enjoy better health and well-being than those who remain on benefits for an extended period of time. And it is a fact that anyone who spends two years on incapacity benefit is more likely to retire or die than to find a job. This has to be changed.

When I wrote recently about the dangers of positive discrimination, the response was pretty mixed, with a number of disabled people saying that they found it so hard to get a job, they'd take any assistance that was offered. I still believe that the risks inherent in ringfencing jobs for individuals with disabilities outweigh any benefits, but at the same time, society must work to remove obstacles in the path to employment. A test that focuses on abilities, rather than incapacities, allied to a support system that will genuinely assist individuals in obtaining the skills and confidence they need to return to work, is surely a step in the right direction.

 

 

What do you think about positive discrimination?

"Make disability news" goes the headline in the sits. vac. entry for an editor for Disability Now, billed as the UK’s leading disability monthly.

It sounds a great job for anyone with a passionate interest in people, society, the news and issues that shape the lives of disabled people, carers, campaigners...

But read the small print, and you realise that it isn't a job for anyone who fits the criteria - no matter how well qualified you may be, there's no point applying unless you are also disabled.

"Time to get equal" says Scope - but when did positive discrimination ever improve the situation for any minority? You've only to look at the media coverage of female Labour MPs who were elected on the basis of their gender in Labour's '97 election landslide to see that nobody benefits from such attempts at social engineering, however well-intentioned. Those who are arbitrarily excluded feel rightly resentful; those given preference must surely ask themselves whether they would have achieved their position on their own merits. And they must continually sell themselves to sceptical colleagues - a tiring distraction from the task in hand.

So what is Disability Now thinking of? It cannot surely be that only disabled people have an insight into issues of disability and equality. What about the parent who has negotiated the maze of social services, education and healthcare on behalf of their disabled child? Or anyone who has cared for a family member with a long-term illness or disability? Are their experiences less appropriate? How about people with professional or commercial experience? Therapists, teachers, specifiers... still not relevant?

Perhaps this is why the DN post has remained unfilled for so long: the people with the necessary skills and talents would really prefer to be selected on ability, not disability.