Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Disability
View on Wikipedia
| Disability |
|---|
|
|
Disability is the experience of any condition that makes it more difficult for a person to do certain activities or have equitable access within a given society.[1] Disabilities may be cognitive, developmental, intellectual, mental, physical, sensory, or a combination of multiple factors. Disabilities can be present from birth or can be acquired during a person's lifetime. Historically, disabilities have only been recognized based on a narrow set of criteria—however, disabilities are not binary and can be present in unique characteristics depending on the individual.[2] A disability may be readily visible, or invisible in nature.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities defines disability as including:
long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder [a person's] full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.[3]
Disabilities have been perceived differently throughout history, through a variety of different theoretical lenses. There are two main models that attempt to explain disability in our society: the medical model and the social model.[4] The medical model serves as a theoretical framework that considers disability as an undesirable medical condition that requires specialized treatment. Those who ascribe to the medical model tend to focus on finding the root causes of disabilities, as well as any cures—such as assistive technology. The social model centers disability as a societally-created limitation on individuals who do not have the same ability as the majority of the population. Those who ascribe to the social model tend to focus on accessibility and social/cultural attitudes toward disability. Although the medical model and social model are the most common frames for disability, there are a multitude of other models that theorize disability.[5]
There are many terms that explain aspects of disability. While some terms solely exist to describe phenomena pertaining to disability, others have been centered around stigmatizing and ostracizing those with disabilities. Some terms have such a negative connotation that they are considered to be slurs.[6] A current point of contention is whether it is appropriate to use person-first language (i.e. a person who is disabled) or identity-first language (i.e. a disabled person) when referring to disability and an individual.
Due to the marginalization of disabled people, there have been several activist causes that push for equitable treatment and access in society. Disability activists have fought to receive equal and equitable rights under the law—though there are still political issues that enable or advance the oppression of disabled people. Although disability activism serves to dismantle ableist systems, social norms relating to the perception of disabilities are often reinforced by tropes used by the media. Since negative perceptions of disability are pervasive in modern society, disabled people have turned to self-advocacy in an attempt to push back against their marginalization. The recognition of disability as an identity that is experienced differently based on the other multi-faceted identities of the individual is one often pointed out by disabled self-advocates. The ostracization of disability from mainstream society has created the opportunity for a disability culture to emerge. While disabled activists still promote the integration of disabled people into mainstream society, several disabled-only spaces have been created to foster a disability community—such as with art, social media, and sports.
History
[edit]Contemporary understandings of disability derive from concepts that arose during the scientific Enlightenment in the west; prior to the Enlightenment, physical differences were viewed through a different lens.[7]

Antiquity
[edit]Historically, scholars have often assumed that disabled individuals were unsupported and marginalized within their communities, based on the belief that ancient agricultural societies had to be strategic with their limited resources for survival.[8] For instance, some historians argue that ancient Greeks actively practiced ableism through infanticide, as suggested in the writings of Plutarch, Plato, and Aristotle.[8]
In The Life of Lycurgus of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, he describes infanticide as a common practice in Sparta, where the lawgiver decreed that newborn infants be taken to the lesche, likely a public building, for examination by elders.[9] If an infant was ‘ill-bred and deformed,’ it would be sent to the apothetai, meaning ‘exposure places,’ a pit beneath Mount Taygetus.[9] Plutarch suggested this practice occurred because a deformed infant would be seen as a liability to Sparta, a city-state known for its strict martial ethos.[10] While Plutarch’s account provides valuable insights into Spartan society, its reliability is questionable, as he lived 700 years after the events he described. Even Plutarch acknowledged that his accounts were open to dispute for this very reason.[11]
Similarly, in The Republic, Plato argues that, in an ideal state, rulers must ensure the breeding of the best men and women while discouraging those deemed inferior from reproducing.[12] He asserts that if the children of inferior parents, or any other parents, were deformed, they should be ‘hidden away in a secret and unknown place, as is fitting.’[12] In Politics, Aristotle advocates that ‘the bodies of offspring should conform to the wishes of the lawgiver,’ ideally being healthy and strong, which implies a similarly ableist stance to that of Plato.[13] He further proposes that a law should exist to prevent the raising of deformed infants, implying his endorsement of killing disabled infants.[14]
However, these claims represent the philosophical ideals of Greek thinkers and do not necessarily reflect the actual practices of ancient Greece, as neither work was intended to serve as factual records.[10] In fact, there is considerable evidence suggesting that individuals with deformities were well cared for in antiquity.
At the Windover Archeological Site, one of the skeletons was a male about 15 years old who had spina bifida. The condition meant that the boy, probably paralyzed below the waist, was taken care of in a hunter-gatherer community.[15][16]
Disability was not viewed as a means of divine punishment and therefore disabled individuals were neither exterminated nor discriminated against for their impairments. Many were instead employed in different levels of Mesopotamian society including working in religious temples as servants of the gods.[17]
In Ancient Egypt, staffs were frequently used in society. A common usage for them was for older persons with disabilities to help them walk.[18]
In Ancient Greece, regardless of gender, age, or rank, deformed citizens were largely acknowledged, embraced, and accommodated in various aspects of society. This is illustrated in the Hippocratic Corpus, a collection of treatises written by physicians during the late 5th and 4th centuries B.C.E. as a practical manual.[8] Therefore, it offers a more accurate depiction of how the Greeks treated disabled people. For instance, many of the treatises describe the conditions and treatments for infants with congenital anomalies or impairments, such as weasel-arm, clubfoot, and cleft conditions.[19][20][21] Ironically, among these, the practice of infanticide or the harming of deformed infants is never mentioned.[8]
In fact, these Hippocratic physicians treated a wide range of patients throughout the Greek-speaking world from the 5th century BCE onwards. Many of them expressed neutrality, if not optimism, toward deformed infants, striving to cure them while documenting their conditions.[8] This suggests that it may not have been normal in ancient Greece to kill deformed infants, presenting a reality that contrasts with the views of Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient philosophers.
Additionally, the depiction of disabled adults or gods was common in the literature of ancient Greece. In Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, Hephaistos, a god and renowned craftsman, is described as being ‘lame in both legs,’ and he is mentioned 41 times in the Iliad and 19 times in the Odyssey.[10] In Book 2 of the Iliad, Homer provides a detailed description of Thersites’ deformity, including his bandy legs, lame foot, hunched shoulders, and balding pate, calling him ‘the ugliest man who came beneath Ilion.’[22] This suggests that ancient Greeks acknowledged disabled adult civilians, as disability, whether congenital or acquired, was common due to the harsh realities of ancient life and warfare.[10]
In addition to literary evidence, archaeological evidence is crucial in unfolding ancient Greeks’ attitude towards deformed individuals. One that is most related to the discussion of infanticide in Ancient Greece is the Agora Bone Well, in which archaeologists found a large number of skeletons, including those of infants.[23] Since the median age at death for these infants was only eight days old, it gives rise to the assumption that infanticide could be a possible explanation.[23] However, scholars cannot determine whether the infants were intentionally killed or whether they died of natural causes, which was particularly common, especially during the first eight days after birth.[8]
Moreover, archaeologists have discovered a significant number of feeding bottles throughout the Hellenic world, dating back to the Late Bronze Age.[10] Many of these were found in the tombs of infants and young children. While scholars debate whether these bottles were used as aids for weaning infants or as symbols of condolence with no practical purpose, the shape of the bottles is particularly suited for feeding infants with cleft conditions.[10] Depending on the severity, such infants would have had difficulty extracting milk from a nipple.[10] This suggests that the ancient Greeks may have invested extra care and resources in raising disabled infants, rather killing them.
Contrary to previous beliefs, Greek men with disabilities or physical infirmities were generally exempt from military campaigns and battles.[8] In Memorabilia, Xenophon suggests that men with bodily weakness or illness were considered liabilities in battle.[24] Additionally, during the Battle of Thermopylae, the Spartan king and commander Leonidas excused Eurytus and Aristodemus from fighting, as both of them were suffering from severe eye sickness, demonstrating that men unfit for war were not forced to participate.[25] However, in exceptional cases, disabled or injured men might be called upon to take on suitable roles that would contribute to the war effort.[8]
In terms of personal life, there is no evidence to suggest that disabled Greeks were barred from marriage or reproduction. This likely stemmed from the belief that deformed parents did not necessarily produce deformed offspring.[26] However, disabled individuals may have faced greater challenges in finding a suitable partner, as they were sometimes rejected by the family of a potential spouse.[8]
Regarding their economic situation, disabled Greeks—regardless of gender or social rank—worked in a variety of positions and professions. According to Lysias, a disabled man who uses two canes to walk ‘plies a craft’ and runs a shop, demonstrating that disabled individuals were not deprived of the ability to support themselves.[27] In On Joints, Hippocrates describes people with arm disabilities also being engaged in ‘handiwork,’ provided they were still able to operate tools.[19] Plato also mentions, in Laws, that slaves who acquired disabilities later in life could be reassigned to other suitable roles, a principle that, logically, should also apply to free individuals in Greece.[28]
Ancient Greeks were also subjected to a wide range of physical consequences of aging, causing impairments and disabilities.[10] Therefore, ancient Greeks put great effort into assisting elderly people in their communities. In some Greek states, children were legally required to care for their elderly parents, which might have included parents who were physically or mentally impaired.[10] According to Aristotle, people who failed to do so would be imprisoned.[29] Provisions that enabled individuals with impaired mobility to access temples and healing sanctuaries were made in ancient Greece.[30] Specifically, by 370 B.C., at the most important healing sanctuary in the wider area, the Sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus, there were at least 11 permanent stone ramps that provided access to mobility-impaired visitors to nine different structures.[31] On top of this, disabled Athenians who were unable to support themselves received monetary assistance from the state, sufficient to cover their basic needs.[32] This indicates that some forms of charity and social welfare existed in Athens.
Disability was also common among individuals of high status in ancient Greece. In the 6th century BCE, Croesus, the King of Lydia, had two sons, one of whom was either deaf or mute.[33] He spent a considerable amount of wealth in an unsuccessful attempt to cure this son, even consulting the oracle of Apollo at Delphi.[33] Eventually, Croesus rejected the disabled son, choosing to favor only his able-bodied son, Atys, instead.[33] Similarly, Agesilaus, a Spartan king in the 4th century BCE, was lame in one leg but still became a general and fought in major battles.[34] The Macedonian king, Philip II, also suffered from multiple physical impairments during his conquests; he lost one eye, fractured his collarbone, and shattered one hand and leg.[35]
In conclusion, ancient Greeks demonstrated notable empathy and acceptance toward their disabled peers, contrary to the views presented in the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Literary accounts from Hippocratic physicians and archaeological evidence support the idea that the Greeks made efforts to cure and assist disabled individuals, including deformed infants, whom Plutarch claimed were promptly killed in Sparta. Since disability was not uncommon, it was frequently mentioned in literature and poetry. Disabled individuals, regardless of social rank, were largely integrated into society, thanks to the variety of roles and duties available in personal life, the economy, and the military.
Middle Ages and After
[edit]During the Middle Ages, madness and other conditions were thought to be caused by demons. They were also thought to be part of the natural order, especially during and in the fallout of the Black Death, which wrought impairments throughout the general population.[36] In the early modern period there was a shift to seeking biological causes for physical and mental differences, as well as heightened interest in demarcating categories: for example, Ambroise Pare, in the sixteenth century, wrote of "monsters", "prodigies", and "the maimed".[37] The European Enlightenment's emphases on knowledge derived from reason and on the value of natural science to human progress helped spawn the birth of institutions and associated knowledge systems that observed and categorized human beings; among these, the ones significant to the development of today's concepts of disability were asylums, clinics, and prisons.[36]
Contemporary concepts of disability are rooted in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century developments. Foremost among these was the development of clinical medical discourse, which made the human body visible as a thing to be manipulated, studied, and transformed. These worked in tandem with scientific discourses that sought to classify and categorize and, in so doing, became methods of normalization.[38]
The concept of the "norm" developed in this time period, and is signaled in the work of the Belgian statistician, sociologist, mathematician, and astronomer Adolphe Quetelet, who wrote in the 1830s of l'homme moyen – the average man. Quetelet postulated that one could take the sum of all people's attributes in a given population (such as their height or weight) and find their average and that this figure should serve as a statistical norm toward which all should aspire.[39]
This idea of the statistical norm threads through the rapid take-up of statistics gathering by Britain, the United States, and the Western European states during this time period, and it is tied to the rise of eugenics.[39] Disability, as well as the concepts of abnormal, non-normal, and normalcy, came from this.[40] The circulation of these concepts is evident in the popularity of the freak show, where showmen profited from exhibiting people who deviated from those norms.[41]
With the rise of eugenics in the latter part of the nineteenth century, such deviations were viewed as dangerous to the health of entire populations. With disability viewed as part of a person's biological make-up and thus their genetic inheritance, scientists turned their attention to notions of weeding such as "deviations" out of the gene pool. Various metrics for assessing a person's genetic fitness were determined and were then used to deport, sterilize, or institutionalize those deemed unfit. People with disabilities were one of the groups targeted by the Nazi regime in Germany, resulting in approximately 250,000 disabled people being killed during the Holocaust.[42] At the end of the Second World War, with the example of Nazi eugenics, eugenics faded from public discourse, and increasingly disability cohered into a set of attributes to which medicine could attend – whether through augmentation, rehabilitation, or treatment. In both contemporary and modern history, disability was often viewed as a by-product of incest between first-degree relatives or second-degree relatives.[43]
Disability scholars have also pointed to the Industrial Revolution, along with the economic shift from feudalism to capitalism, as prominent historical moments in the understanding of disability. Although there was a certain amount of religious superstition surrounding disability during the Middle Ages, disabled people were still able to play significant roles in the rural production based economy, allowing them to make genuine contributions to daily economic life.[44] The Industrial Revolution and the advent of capitalism made it so that people were no longer tied to the land and were then forced to find work that would pay a wage in order to survive. The wage system, in combination with industrialized production, transformed the way bodies were viewed as people were increasingly valued for their ability to produce like machines.[45] Capitalism and the industrial revolution effectively solidified this class of "disabled" people who could not conform to the standard worker's body or level of work power. As a result, disabled people came to be regarded as a problem, to be solved or erased.[44]
In the early 1970s, the disability rights movement became established, when disability activists began to challenge how society treated disabled people and the medical approach to disability. Due to this work, physical barriers to access were identified. These conditions functionally disabled them, and what is now known as the social model of disability emerged. Coined by Mike Oliver in 1983, this phrase distinguishes between the medical model of disability – under which an impairment needs to be fixed – and the social model of disability – under which the society that limits a person needs to be fixed.[46]
Theory
[edit]Like many social categories, the concept of "disability" is under heavy discussion amongst academia, the medical and legal worlds, and the disability community.
Disability studies
[edit]The academic discipline focused on theorizing disability is disability studies, which has been expanding since the late twentieth century. The field investigates the past, present, and future constructions of disability, along with advancing the viewpoint that disability is a complex social identity from which we can all gain insight. As disabilities scholar Claire Mullaney puts it, "At its broadest, disability studies encourages scholars to value disability as a form of cultural difference".[47] Scholars of the field focus on a range of disability-related topics, such as ethics, policy and legislation, history, art of the disability community, and more. Notable scholars from the field include Marta Russell, Robert McRuer, Johanna Hedva, Laura Hershey, Irving Zola, and many more. Prominent disability scholar Lennard J. Davis notes that disability studies should not be considered a niche or specialized discipline, but instead is applicable to a wide range of fields and topics.[47]
International Classification
[edit]The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), produced by the World Health Organization, distinguishes between body functions (physiological or psychological, such as vision) and body structures (anatomical parts, such as the eye and related structures). Impairment in bodily structure or function is defined as involving an anomaly, defect, loss or other significant deviation from certain generally accepted population standards, which may fluctuate over time. Activity is defined as the execution of a task or action. The ICF lists nine broad domains of functioning which can be affected:
- Learning and applying knowledge
- General tasks and demands
- Communication
- Basic physical mobility, Domestic life, and Self-care (for example, activities of daily living)
- Interpersonal interactions and relationships
- Community, social and civic life, including employment
- Other major life areas
In concert with disability scholars, the introduction to the ICF states that a variety of conceptual models have been proposed to understand and explain disability and functioning, which it seeks to integrate. These models include the following:
Medical model
[edit]The medical model views disability as a problem of the person, directly caused by disease, trauma, or other health conditions which therefore requires sustained medical care in the form of individual treatment by professionals. In the medical model, management of the disability is aimed at a "cure", or the individual's adjustment and behavioral change that would lead to an "almost-cure" or effective cure. The individual, in this case, must overcome their disability by medical care. In the medical model, medical care is viewed as the main issue, and at the political level, the principal response is that of modifying or reforming healthcare policy.[48][49]
The medical model focuses on finding causes and cures for disabilities.
Causes
[edit]There are many causes of disability that often affect basic activities of daily living, such as eating, dressing, transferring, and maintaining personal hygiene; or advanced activities of daily living such as shopping, food preparation, driving, or working. However, causes of disability are usually determined by a person's capability to perform the activities of daily life. As Marta Russell and Ravi Malhotra argue, "The 'medicalization' of disablement and the tools of classification clearly played an important role in establishing divisions between the 'disabled' and the 'able-bodied.'"[50] This positions disability as a problem to be solved via medical intervention, which hinders our understanding about what disability can mean.
[51] For the purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations provide a list of conditions that should easily be concluded to be disabilities: amputation, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, bipolar disorder, blindness, cancer, cerebral palsy, deafness, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, intellectual disability, major depressive disorder, mobility impairments requiring a wheelchair, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), spina bifida, and schizophrenia.[52]
This is not an exhaustive list and many injuries and medical problems cause disability. Some causes of disability, such as injuries, may resolve over time and are considered temporary disabilities. An acquired disability is the result of impairments that occur suddenly or chronically during the lifespan, as opposed to being born with the impairment. Invisible disabilities may not be obviously noticeable.
Cures
[edit]The medical model focuses heavily on finding treatments, cures, or rehabilitative practices for disabled people.[53]
Assistive technology
[edit]Assistive technology is a generic term for devices and modifications (for a person or within a society) that help overcome or remove a disability. The first recorded example of the use of a prosthesis dates to at least 1800 BC.[54] The wheelchair dates from the 17th century.[55] The curb cut is a related structural innovation. Other examples are standing frames, text telephones, accessible keyboards, large print, braille, and speech recognition software. Disabled people often develop adaptations which can be personal (e.g. strategies to suppress tics in public) or community (e.g. sign language in d/Deaf communities).
As the personal computer has become more ubiquitous, various organizations have formed to develop software and hardware to make computers more accessible for disabled people. Some software and hardware, such as Voice Finger, Freedom Scientific's JAWS, the Free and Open Source alternative Orca etc. have been specifically designed for disabled people while other software and hardware, such as Nuance's Dragon NaturallySpeaking, were not developed specifically for disabled people, but can be used to increase accessibility.[56] The LOMAK keyboard was designed in New Zealand specifically for persons with disabilities.[57] The World Wide Web consortium recognized a need for International Standards for Web Accessibility for persons with disabilities and created the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).[58] As at Dec 2012 the standard is WCAG 2.0 (WCAG = Web Content Accessibility Guidelines).[59]
Social model
[edit]The social model of disability sees "disability" as a socially created problem and a matter of the full integration of individuals into society. In this model, disability is not an attribute of an individual, but rather a complex collection of conditions, created by the social environment. The management of the problem requires social action and it is the collective responsibility of society to create a society in which limitations for disabled people are minimal. Disability is both cultural and ideological in creation. According to the social model, equal access for someone with an impairment/disability is a human rights concern.[60][49] The social model of disability has come under criticism. While recognizing the importance played by the social model in stressing the responsibility of society, scholars, including Tom Shakespeare, point out the limits of the model and urge the need for a new model that will overcome the "medical vs. social" dichotomy.[61] The limitations of this model mean that often the vital services and information persons with disabilities face are simply not available, often due to limited economic returns in supporting them.[62]
Some say medical humanities is a fruitful field where the gap between the medical and the social model of disability might be bridged.[63]
Social construction
[edit]The social construction of disability is the idea that disability is constructed by social expectations and institutions rather than biological differences. Highlighting the ways society and institutions construct disability is one of the main focuses of this idea.[64] In the same way that race and gender are not biologically fixed, neither is disability.
Around the early 1970s, sociologists, notably Eliot Friedson, began to argue that labeling theory and social deviance could be applied to disability studies. This led to the creation of the social construction of disability theory. The social construction of disability is the idea that disability is constructed as the social response to a deviance from the norm. The medical industry is the creator of the ill and disabled social role. Medical professionals and institutions, who wield expertise over health, have the ability to define health and physical and mental norms. When an individual has a feature that creates an impairment, restriction, or limitation from reaching the social definition of health, the individual is labeled as disabled. Under this idea, disability is not defined by the physical features of the body but by a deviance from the social convention of health.[65]
The social construction of disability would argue that the medical model of disability's view that a disability is an impairment, restriction, or limitation is wrong. Instead what is seen as a disability is just a difference in the individual from what is considered "normal" in society.[66]
Other models
[edit]- The political/relational model is an alternative to and critical engagement with both the social and medical models. This analytic posed by Alison Kafer shows not only how the "problem" of disability "is located in inaccessible buildings, discriminatory attitudes, and ideological systems that attribute normalcy and deviance to particular minds and bodies" but also how mind and bodily impairments can still have disabling effects. Furthermore, the political/relational model frames the medicalization of disabled folks as political in nature given it should always be interrogated.[67]
- The spectrum model refers to the range of audibility, sensibility, and visibility under which people function. The model asserts that disability does not necessarily mean a reduced spectrum of operations. Rather, disability is often defined according to thresholds set on a continuum of disability.[68]
- The moral model refers to the attitude that people are morally responsible for their own disability.[69] For example, disability may be seen as a result of bad actions of parents if congenital, or as a result of practicing witchcraft if not.[70] Echoes of this can be seen in the doctrine of karma in Eastern and New Age religions. It also includes notions that a disability gives a person "special abilities to perceive, reflect, transcend, be spiritual".[71]
- The expert/professional model has provided a traditional response to disability issues and can be seen as an offshoot of the medical model. Within its framework, professionals follow a process of identifying the impairment and its limitations (using the medical model), and taking the necessary action to improve the position of the disabled person. This has tended to produce a system in which an authoritarian, over-active service provider prescribes and acts for a passive client.[72]
- The tragedy/charity model depicts disabled people as victims of circumstance who are deserving of pity. This, along with the medical model, are the models used by most people with no acknowledged disability to define and explain disability.[73]
- The legitimacy model views disability as a value-based determination about which explanations for the atypical are legitimate for membership in the disability category. This viewpoint allows for multiple explanations and models to be considered as purposive and viable.[74]
- The social adapted model states although a person's disability poses some limitations in an able-bodied society, often the surrounding society and environment are more limiting than the disability itself.[75]
- The economic model defines disability in terms of reduced ability to work, the related loss of productivity and economic effects on the individual, employer and society in general.[76]
- The empowering model (also, customer model or supported decision making) allows for the person with a disability and their family to decide the course of their treatment. This turns the professional into a service provider whose role is to offer guidance and carry out the client's decisions. This model "empowers" the individual to pursue their own goals.[75]
- The market model of disability is minority rights and consumerist model of disability that recognizing disabled people and their stakeholders as representing a large group of consumers, employees, and voters. This model looks to personal identity to define disability and empowers people to chart their own destiny in everyday life, with a particular focus on economic empowerment. Based on US Census data, this model shows that there are 1.2 billion people in the world who consider themselves to have a disability. "This model states that due to the size of the demographic, companies and governments will serve the desires, pushed by demand as the message becomes prevalent in the cultural mainstream."[49]
- The consumer model of disability is based upon the "rights-based" model and claims that disabled people should have equal rights and access to products, goods, and services offered by businesses. The consumer model extends the rights-based model by proposing that businesses, not only accommodate customers with disabilities under the requirements of legislation but that businesses actively seek, market to, welcome and fully engage disabled people in all aspects of business service activities. The model suggests that all business operations, for example, websites, policies, procedures, mission statements, emergency plans, programs, and services, should integrate access and inclusion practices. Furthermore, these access and inclusion practices should be based on established customer service access and inclusion standards that embrace and support the active engagement of people of all abilities in business offerings.[77] In this regard, specialized products and specialized services become important, such as auxiliary means, prostheses, special foods, domestic help, and assisted living.[78]
- Different theories revolve around prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, and stigma related to disability. One of the more popular ones, as put by Weiner, Perry, and Magnusson's (1988) work with attribution theory, physical stigmas are perceived as to be uncontrollable and elicit pity and desire to help, whereas, mental-behavioral stigmas are considered to be controllable and therefore elicit anger and desire to neglect the individuals with disabilities.[79]
- The 'just-world fallacy' talks about how a person is viewed as deserving the disability. And because it is the fault of that person, an observer does not feel obligated to feel bad for them or to help them.[80]
Terminology
[edit]People-first language
[edit]People-first language is one way to talk about disability which some people prefer. Using people-first language is said to put the person before the disability. Those individuals who prefer people-first language would prefer to be called, "a person with a disability". This style is reflected in major legislation on disability rights, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
"Cerebral Palsy: A Guide for Care" at the University of Delaware describes people-first language:[81]
The American Psychological Association style guide states that, when identifying a person with a disability, the person's name or pronoun should come first, and descriptions of the disability should be used so that the disability is identified, but is not modifying the person. Acceptable examples included "a woman with Down syndrome" or "a man who has schizophrenia". It also states that a person's adaptive equipment should be described functionally as something that assists a person, not as something that limits a person, for example, "a woman who uses a wheelchair" rather than "a woman in/confined to a wheelchair".
People-first terminology is used in the UK in the form "people with impairments" (such as "people with visual impairments"). However, in the UK, identity-first language is generally preferred over people-first language.
The use of people-first terminology has given rise to the use of the acronym PWD to refer to person(s) (or people) with disabilities (or disability).[82][83][84] However other individuals and groups prefer identity-first language to emphasize how a disability can impact people's identities. Which style of language used varies between different countries, groups and individuals.
Identity-first language
[edit]Identity-first language describes the person as "disabled". Some people prefer this and argue that this fits the social model of disability better than people-first language, as it emphasizes that the person is disabled not by their body, but by a world that does not accommodate them.[85]
This is especially true in the UK, where it is argued under the social model that while someone's impairment (for example, having a spinal cord injury) is an individual property, "disability" is something created by external societal factors such as a lack of accessibility.[86] This distinction between the individual property of impairment and the social property of disability is central to the social model. The term "disabled people" as a political construction is also widely used by international organizations of disabled people, such as Disabled Peoples' International.
Using the identity-first language also parallels how people talk about other aspects of identity and diversity. For example:[87]
In the autism community, many self-advocates and their allies prefer terminology such as 'Autistic,' 'Autistic person,' or 'Autistic individual' because we understand autism as an inherent part of an individual's identity – the same way one refers to 'Muslims,' 'African-Americans,' 'Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer,' 'Chinese,' 'gifted,' 'athletic,' or 'Jewish.'
Similarly, Deaf communities in the US reject people-first language in favor of identity-first language.[88]
In 2021, the US Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) announced their decision to use identity-first language in their materials, explaining: "Identity-first language challenges negative connotations by claiming disability directly. Identity-first language references the variety that exists in how our bodies and brains work with a myriad of conditions that exist, and the role of inaccessible or oppressive systems, structures, or environments in making someone disabled."[89]
Handicap
[edit]- The term handicap derives from the medieval game hand-in-cap, in which two players trade possessions, and a third, neutral person judges the difference of value between the possessions.[90] The concept of a neutral person evening up the odds was extended to handicap racing in the mid-18th century, where horses carry different weights based on the umpire's estimation of what would make them run equally. In the early 20th century the word gained the additional meaning of describing a disability, in the sense that a person with a handicap was carrying a heavier burden than normal.[91] This concept, then, adds to the conception of disability as a burden, or individual problem, rather than a societal problem.[92] The UK government advises civil servants to avoid this term.[93]
Accessibility
[edit]
- Accessibility is the degree to which a product, service or environment is available for use to the people that need it. People with certain types of disabilities struggle to get equal access to some things in society. For example, a blind person cannot read printed paper ballots, and therefore does not have access to voting that requires paper ballots. Another example can be that a person in a wheelchair cannot ascend stairs and therefore does not have access to buildings without ramps. Accessible access to health clubs and fitness centers has been observed to be especially problematic.[94][95]
Accommodation
[edit]- A change that improves access. For example, if voting ballots are available in braille or on a text-to-speech machine, or if another person reads the ballot to the blind person and recorded the choices, then the blind person would have access to voting.
Invisible disability
[edit]Invisible disabilities, also known as Hidden Disabilities or Non-visible Disabilities (NVD), are disabilities that are not immediately apparent, or seeable. They are often chronic illnesses and conditions that significantly impair normal activities of daily living. Invisible disabilities can hinder a person's efforts to go to school, work, socialize, and more. Some examples of invisible disabilities include intellectual disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, fibromyalgia, mental disorders, asthma, epilepsy, allergies, migraines, arthritis, and chronic fatigue syndrome.[96]
Employment discrimination is reported to play a significant part in the high rate of unemployment among those with a diagnosis of mental illness.[97]
Episodic disability
[edit]People with health conditions such as arthritis, bipolar disorder, HIV, or multiple sclerosis may have periods of wellness between episodes of illness. During the illness episodes people's ability to perform normal tasks, such as work, can be intermittent.[98]
Disability activism
[edit]Disability activism itself has led to the revision of appropriate language, when discussing disability and disabled people. For example, the medical classification of 'retarded' has since been disregarded, due to its negative implications. Moreover, disability activism has also led to pejorative language being reclaimed by disabled people. Mairs (1986)[99] explained how disabled people may choose to self-describe themselves as a 'cripple'. This may appear surprising that they are using stereotypically negative language associated with disability to describe themselves; however the purpose is to reclaim the 'disabled identity' from medical professionals, and realign it with the preferred language of disabled people. The reclamation of language demonstrated above positions itself within the social model, as it highlights how as a society we construct concepts and perceptions of disability.

Disability activists have drawn attention to the following issues:

Rights and policies
[edit]Rights movement
[edit]The disability rights movement aims to secure equal opportunities and equal rights for disabled people. The specific goals and demands of the movement are accessibility and safety in transportation, architecture, and the physical environment; equal opportunities in independent living, employment, education, and housing; and freedom from abuse, neglect, and violations of patients' rights.[101] Effective civil rights legislation is sought to secure these opportunities and rights.[101][102][103]
The early disability rights movement was dominated by the medical model of disability, where emphasis was placed on curing or treating disabled people so that they would adhere to the social norm, but starting in the 1960s, rights groups began shifting to the social model of disability, where disability is interpreted as an issue of discrimination, thereby paving the way for rights groups to achieve equality through legal means.[104]
Advocacy for disability issues and accessibility in the republics of the former Soviet Union has become more organized and influential in policymaking.[105]
Disability Justice Movement
[edit]Evolving from the disability rights movement is the Disability Justice movement, which aims to improve the lives of disabled people through prioritizing collective liberation, as opposed to prioritizing legislative change and traditional civil rights. This framework, dubbed the "second wave" of disability rights, seeks to examine the many systems of oppression that are intertwined with ableism, such colonialism, white supremacy, and heteropatriarchal capitalism.[106] The term "Disability Justice" was coined in 2005 by LGBTQ disabled women of color, Mia Mingus, Patricia Berne, and Stacey Milbern, who sought to build an anti-ableist movement with a larger emphasis on intersectionality than mainstream disability rights, as to center marginalized voices. Their group, the Disability Justice Collective, also included notable disability activists such as Sebastian Margaret, Leroy F. Moore Jr., well known for his poetry and founding of the Krip Hop movement, and Eli Clare, well known for popularizing the bodymind concept within disability studies.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
[edit]On December 13, 2006, the United Nations formally agreed on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the first human rights treaty of the 21st century, to protect and enhance the rights and opportunities of the world's estimated 650 million disabled people.[107] As of January 2021[update], 182 nations have ratified or accepted accession to the convention.[108] Countries that sign the convention are required to adopt national laws, and remove old ones, so that persons with disabilities will, for example, have equal rights to education, employment, and cultural life; to the right to own and inherit property; to not be discriminated against in marriage, etc.; and to not be unwilling subjects in medical experiments. UN officials, including the High Commissioner for Human Rights, have characterized the bill as representing a paradigm shift in attitudes toward a more rights-based view of disability in line with the social model.[107]
International Year of Disabled Persons
[edit]In 1976, the United Nations began planning for its International Year of Disabled Persons (1981),[109] later renamed the International Year of Disabled Persons. Some disability activists used the Year to highlight various injustices, such as in Australia where beauty pageants were targeted in order to, in the words of activist Leslie Hall, "challenge the notion of beauty" and "reject the charity ethic.[110] The UN Decade of Disabled Persons (1983–1993) featured a World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons. In 1979, Frank Bowe was the only person with a disability representing any country in the planning of IYDP-1981. Today, many countries have named representatives who are themselves individuals with disabilities. The decade was closed in an address before the General Assembly by Robert Davila. Both Bowe and Davila are deaf. In 1984, UNESCO accepted sign language for use in the education of deaf children and youth.
Policies in former Soviet Union republics
[edit]UN programs and OSCE work to align policy and programs in countries that were part of the former Soviet Union with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.[111]
Political issues
[edit]
Political rights, social inclusion and citizenship have come to the fore in developed and some developing countries. The debate has, some instances, moved beyond a concern about the perceived cost of maintaining dependent disabled people to finding effective ways to ensure that disabled people can participate in and contribute to society in all spheres of life.
In developing nations, where the vast bulk of the estimated 650 million disabled people reside, a great deal of work is needed to address concerns ranging from accessibility and education to self-empowerment, self-supporting employment, and beyond.[112]
In the past few decades, the efforts of disability rights activists around the world, focused on obtaining full citizenship for disabled people, have come under academic study and gained some level of public recognition in many places, such as in the United States.[113][114]
There are obstacles in many countries in getting full employment and public perception of disabled people varies.[115]
Abuse
[edit]Disability abuse happens when a person is abused physically, financially, verbally or mentally due to the person having a disability. As many disabilities are not visible (for example, asthma, learning disabilities) some abusers cannot rationalize the non-physical disability with a need for understanding, support, and so on.[116][117]
As the prevalence of disability and the cost of supporting disability increases with medical advancement and longevity in general, this aspect of society becomes of greater political importance. How political parties treat their disabled constituents may become a measure of a political party's understanding of disability, particularly in the social model of disability.[118]
Insurance
[edit]Disability benefit, or disability pension, is a major kind of disability insurance that is provided by government agencies to people who are temporarily or permanently unable to work due to a disability. In the US, the disability benefit is provided in the category of Supplemental Security Income. In Canada, it is within the Canada Pension Plan.[119] Following a long nationwide campaign involving hundreds of thousands of people the National Disability Insurance Scheme was introduced in Australia in 2013 to fund a number of supports.In other countries, disability benefits may be provided under social security systems.[120]
Costs of disability pensions are steadily growing in Western countries, mainly in Europe and the United States. It was reported that, in the UK, expenditure on disability pensions accounted for 0.9% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1980; two decades later it had reached 2.6% of GDP.[117][121] Several studies have reported a link between increased absence from work due to sickness and elevated risk of future disability pension.[122]
A study by researchers in Denmark suggests that information on self-reported days of absence due to sickness can be used to effectively identify future potential groups for disability pension.[121] These studies may provide useful information for policymakers, case managing authorities, employers, and physicians.
In Switzerland, social policies in the field of disability have been significantly reshaped over the last two decades by reducing the number of allowances awarded and by increasing the recourse to vocational rehabilitation measures. Drawing on interviews conducted with individuals who have been involved in programs set up by Swiss disability insurance, a study highlights their uncertainties and concerns relating to their place in society, as well as their reactions to disability insurance's interventions.[123][124]
Private, for-profit disability insurance plays a role in providing incomes to disabled people, but the nationalized programs are the safety net that catch most claimants.
Employment
[edit]Studies have illustrated a correlation between disability and poverty. Notably, jobs offered to disabled people are scarce. Marta Russell notes that "[a] primary basis for oppression of disabled persons (those who could work with accommodations) is their exclusion from exploitation as wage laborers."[125]
Intellectual disability
[edit]Many countries have programs which aid intellectually disabled (ID) people to acquire skills needed in the workforce.[126] Such programs include sheltered workshops and adult day care programs. Sheltered programs consist of daytime activities such as gardening, manufacturing, and assembling. These activities facilitate routine-oriented tasks that in turn allow ID people to gain experience before entering the workforce. Similarly, adult day care programs also include day time activities. However, these activities are based in an educational environment where ID people are able to engage in educational, physical, and communication-based tasks which helps facilitate communication, memory, and general living skills. In addition, adult day care programs arranged community activities by scheduling field trips to public places (e.g. zoos, and movie theaters). Despite both programs providing essential skills for intellectually disabled people prior to entering the workforce, researchers have found that ID people prefer to be involved with community-integrated employment.[126] Community-integrated employment opportunities are offered to ID people at minimum or higher wages, in a variety of occupations ranging from customer service, clerical, janitorial, hospitality and manufacturing positions. ID employees work alongside employees without disabilities who are able to assist them with training. All three options allow intellectually disabled people to develop and exercise social skills that are vital to everyday life. However, it is not guaranteed that ID employees receive the same treatment as employees without ID; according to Lindstrom et al., community-integrated employees are less likely to receive raises, and only 26% are able to retain full-time status.[127]
Finding a stable workforce poses additional challenges. A study published in the Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability indicated that although finding a job may be difficult, stabilizing a job is even harder.[128] Chadsey-Rusch proposed that securing employment for ID people requires adequate production skills and effective social skills.[128] Other underlying factors for job loss include structural factors and worker-workplace integration. As stated by Kilsby, limited structural factors can affect a multitude of factors in a job, such as a restricted number of hours an ID person is allowed to work. This in return, according to Fabian et al., leads to a lack of opportunity to develop relationships with coworkers or to better integrate within the workplace. Nevertheless, those who are unable to stabilize a job often are left discouraged. According to the same study conducted by JARID, many who had participated found that they had made smaller incomes when compared to their co-workers, had an excess of time throughout their days, because they did not have work. They also had feelings of hopelessness and failure. According to the US National Organization on Disability, not only do ID people face constant discouragement, but many live below the poverty line, because they are unable to find or stabilize employment and because of employee restricting factors placed on ID workers.[127] This renders ID people unable to provide for themselves, including basic necessities such as food, medical care, transportation, and housing.
Poverty
[edit]
The poverty rate for working-age people with disabilities is nearly two and a half times higher than that for people without disabilities. Disability and poverty may form a vicious circle, in which physical barriers and stigma of disability make it more difficult to get income, which in turn diminishes access to health care and other necessities for a healthy life.[129] In societies without state funded health and social services, living with a disability could require spending on medication and frequent health care visits, in-home personal assistance, and adaptive devices and clothing, along with the usual costs of living. The World report on disability indicates that half of all disabled people cannot afford health care, compared to a third of abled people.[130] In countries without public services for adults with disabilities, their families may be impoverished.[131]
Disasters
[edit]There is limited research knowledge, but many anecdotal reports, on what happens when disasters impact disabled people.[132][133] Individuals with disabilities are greatly affected by disasters.[132][134] Those with physical disabilities can be at risk when evacuating if assistance is not available. Individuals with cognitive impairments may struggle with understanding instructions that must be followed in the event a disaster occurs.[134][135][136] All of these factors can increase the degree of variation of risk in disaster situations with disabled individuals.[137]
Research studies have consistently found discrimination against individuals with disabilities during all phases of a disaster cycle.[132] The most common limitation is that people cannot physically access buildings or transportation, as well as access disaster-related services.[132] The exclusion of these individuals is caused in part by the lack of disability-related training provided to emergency planners and disaster relief personnel.[138]
Disability in society
[edit]
Aging
[edit]To a certain degree, physical impairments and changing mental states are almost ubiquitously experienced by people as they age. Aging populations are often stigmatized for having a high prevalence of disability. Kathleen Woodward, writing in Key Words for Disability Studies, explains the phenomenon as follows:
Aging is invoked rhetorically – at times ominously – as a pressing reason why disability should be of crucial interest to all of us (we are all getting older, we will all be disabled eventually), thereby inadvertently reinforcing the damaging and dominant stereotype of aging as solely an experience of decline and deterioration. But little attention has been given to the imbrication of aging and disability.[139]
In Feminist, Queer, Crip, Alison Kafer mentions aging and the anxiety associated with it. According to Kafer, this anxiety stems from ideas of normalcy. She says:
Anxiety about aging, for example, can be seen as a symptom of compulsory able-bodiedness/able-mindedness, as can attempts to "treat" children who are slightly shorter than average with growth hormones; in neither case are the people involved necessarily disabled, but they are certainly affected by cultural ideals of normalcy and ideal form and function.[140]
Societal norms
[edit]In contexts where their differences are visible, persons with disabilities often face stigma. People frequently react to disabled presence with fear, pity, patronization, intrusive gazes, revulsion, or disregard. These reactions can, and often do, exclude persons with disabilities from accessing social spaces along with the benefits and resources these spaces provide.[141] Disabled writer/researcher Jenny Morris describes how stigma functions to marginalize persons with disabilities:[142]
Going out in public so often takes courage. How many of us find that we can't dredge up the strength to do it day after day, week after week, year after year, a lifetime of rejection and revulsion? It is not only physical limitations that restrict us to our homes and those whom we know. It is the knowledge that each entry into the public world will be dominated by stares, by condescension, by pity, and by hostility.
Additionally, facing stigma can cause harm to the psycho-emotional well-being of the person being stigmatized. One of the ways in which the psycho-emotional health of persons with disabilities is adversely affected is through the internalization of the oppression they experience, which can lead to feeling that they are weak, crazy, worthless or any number of other negative attributes that may be associated with their conditions. Internalization of oppression damages the self-esteem of the person affected and shapes their behaviors in ways that are compliant with dominance of those with no acknowledged disability.[141] Ableist ideas are frequently internalized when disabled people are pressured by the people and institutions around them to hide and downplay their disabled difference, or, "pass". According to writer Simi Linton, the act of passing takes a deep emotional toll by causing disabled individuals to experience loss of community, anxiety and self-doubt.[143] The media play a significant role in creating and reinforcing stigma associated with disability. Media portrayals of disability usually cast disabled presence as necessarily marginal within society at large. These portrayals simultaneously reflect and influence the popular perception of disabled difference.
Tropes
[edit]There are distinct tactics that the media frequently employ in representing disability. These common ways of framing disability are heavily criticized for being dehumanizing and failing to place importance on the perspectives of persons with disabilities. As outlined by disability theorist and rhetorician Jay Timothy Dolmage, ableist media tropes can reflect and continue to perpetuate societal myths about disabled people.[144]
Inspiration porn
[edit]Inspiration porn refers to portrayals of persons with disabilities in which they are presented as being inspiring simply because the person has a disability. These portrayals are criticized because they are created with the intent of making viewers with no acknowledged disability feel better about themselves in comparison to the individual portrayed. Rather than recognizing the humanity of persons with disabilities, inspiration porn turns them into objects of inspiration for an audience composed of those with no acknowledged disability.[145]
Supercrip
[edit]The supercrip trope refers to instances when the media reports on or portray a disabled person who has made a noteworthy achievement but centers on their disability rather than what they actually did. They are portrayed as awe-inspiring for being exceptional compared to others with the same or similar conditions. This trope is widely used in reporting on disabled athletes as well as in portrayals of autistic savants.[146][147]
These representations, notes disability scholar Ria Cheyne, "are widely assumed to be inherently regressive",[148] reducing people to their condition rather than viewing them as full people. Furthermore, supercrip portrayals are criticized for creating the unrealistic expectation that disability should be accompanied by some type of special talent, genius, or insight.[149]
Examples of this trope in the media include Dr. Shaun Murphy from The Good Doctor, Marvel's Daredevil, and others.
Scholar Sami Schalk argues that the term supercrip has a narrow definition given how widely used the term is. As a result, Schlak provides three categories of supercrip narratives used:[149]
- The regular supercrip narrative in which a disabled person gains regulation for completing mundane tacts. This is commonly seen as a disabled person being able to accomplish something despite their disability.
- The glorified supercrip narrative in which a disabled person is praised for succeeding at something even a non-disabled person would not be able to do. This narrative form is commonly used to talk about disabled Paralympic athletes.
- The superpowered supercrip narrative which appears in functionalized representations of disabled characters. Characters of this narrative type gain superpowers due to their disability. Common examples of this narrative form in action are prosthetics limbs that make one more powerful than expected or have futuristic technology that makes one a cyborg.[149]
Disabled villain
[edit]Characters in fiction that bear physical or mental markers of difference from perceived societal norms are frequently positioned as villains within a text. Lindsey Row-Heyveld shares ways students should be taught to begin to further analyze this issue.[150] Disabled people's visible differences from the abled majority are meant to evoke fear in audiences that can perpetuate the mindset of disabled people being a threat to individual or public interests and well-being.
Disability drop
[edit]The "disability drop" trope is when a supposedly disabled character is revealed to have been faking, embellishing, or otherwise not actually embodying their claimed disability. Jay Dolmage offers Kevin Spacey's character, Verbal Kint, in the film Usual Suspects as an example of this, and depictions like this can reflect able-bodied society's mistrust of disabled people.[144] In addition, this reveal of a character's nondisabledness often serves as the narrative climax of a story, and the use of disability as a source of conflict in the plot, narrative obstacle, or a device of characterization aligns with other disability studies scholars' theory of "Narrative Prosthesis", a term coined by David T. Mitchell and Sharon Snyder.[151]
The disabled victim
[edit]Another frequent occurrence is when someone with a disability is assumed to be miserable or helpless.[152]
The Hunchback of Notre Dame's Quasimodo, The Elephant Man's John Merrick, A Christmas Carol's Tiny Tim, and even news broadcasts that refer to people as "victims" or "sufferers" are a few examples of this stereotype.[153]
Eternally Innocent
[edit]Characters with disabilities are frequently portrayed in movies as being angelic or childish. These films include Rain Man (1988), Forrest Gump (1994) and I Am Sam (2001).[154][155]
The innocent and endearing person with a disability often points out the inadequacies of their "normal" adult peers, which helps them achieve salvation.[154][156]
Like all the others, this stereotype perpetuates patronizing perceptions that are simply untrue and are therefore damaging.[157]
While there are many disability tropes, disability aesthetics attempts to dispel them by accurately depicting disabled bodies in art and media.[158]
Self-advocacy
[edit]Some disabled people have attempted to resist marginalization through the use of the social model in opposition to the medical model; with the aim of shifting criticism away from their bodies and impairments and towards the social institutions that oppress them relative to their abled peers. Disability activism that demands many grievances be addressed, such as lack of accessibility, poor representation in media, general disrespect, and lack of recognition, originates from a social model framework.[159]
The creation of "disability culture" stemmed from the shared experience of stigmatization in broader society.[160] Embracing disability as a positive identity by becoming involved in disabled communities and participating in disability culture can be an effective way to combat internalized prejudice; and can challenge dominant narratives about disability.[161]
Intersections
[edit]This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (February 2018) |

The experiences that disabled people have to navigate social institutions vary greatly as a function of what other social categories they may belong to. For example, a disabled man and a disabled woman experience disability differently.[162] This speaks to the concept of intersectionality, which explains that different aspects of a person's identity (such as their gender, race, sexuality, religion, or social class) intersect and create unique experiences of oppression and privilege.[163] The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities differentiates between a few kinds of disability intersections, such as the age-disability, race-disability, and gender-disability intersection.[164][165] However, many more intersections exist. Disability is defined differently by each person; it may be visible or invisible, and multiple intersections often arise from overlapping identity categories.
Race
[edit]Incidence of disability is reported to be greater among several minority communities across the globe, according to a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study.[166] Disabled people who are also racial minorities generally have less access to support and are more vulnerable to violent discrimination.[167] A study in the journal Child Development indicated that minority disabled children are more likely to receive punitive discipline in low and middle income countries.[168] Due to the fact that children with disabilities are mistreated more often than those without disability; racialized children in this category are at an even higher risk.[169][170][171][172][173] With respect to disability in the United States, Camille A. Nelson, writing for the Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, notes the dual discrimination that racial minorities with disabilities experience from the criminal justice system, expressing that for "people who are negatively racialized, that is people who are perceived as being non-white, and for whom mental illness is either known or assumed, interaction with police is precarious and potentially dangerous."[174]
Gender
[edit]The marginalization of people with disabilities can leave persons with disabilities unable to actualize what society expects of gendered existence. This lack of recognition for their gender identity can leave persons with disabilities with feelings of inadequacy. Thomas J. Gerschick of Illinois State University describes why this denial of gendered identity occurs:[175]
Bodies operate socially as canvases on which gender is displayed and kinesthetically as the mechanisms by which it is physically enacted. Thus, the bodies of people with disabilities make them vulnerable to being denied recognition as women and men.
To the extent that women and men with disabilities are gendered, the interactions of these two identities lead to different experiences. Women with disabilities face a sort of "double stigmatization" in which their membership to both of these marginalized categories simultaneously exacerbates the negative stereotypes associated with each as they are ascribed to them. However, according to the framework of intersectionality, gender and disability intersect to create a unique experience that is not simply the coincidence of being a woman and having a disability separately, but the unique experience of being a woman with a disability. It follows that the more marginalized groups one belongs to, their experience of privilege or oppression changes: in short, a black woman and a white woman will experience disability differently.[176]
According to The UN Woman Watch, "Persistence of certain cultural, legal and institutional barriers makes women and girls with disabilities the victims of two-fold discrimination: as women and as persons with disabilities."[177] As Rosemarie Garland-Thomson puts it, "Women with disabilities, even more intensely than women in general, have been cast in the collective cultural imagination as inferior, lacking, excessive, incapable, unfit, and useless."[178]
Socio-economic background
[edit]Similar to the intersections of race and disability or gender and disability, a person's socio-economic background will also change their experience of disability. A disabled person with a low socio-economic status will experience the world differently, with more obstacles and fewer opportunities, than a disabled person with a high socio-economic status.[179][180]
A good example of the intersection between disability and socio-economic status is access to education, as we know that there are direct links between poverty and disability - [180][181][182] often working in a vicious cycle.[183] The costs of special education and caring for a disabled child are higher than for a child with no acknowledged disability, which poses an immense barrier in accessing appropriate education.[184] The inaccessibility of appropriate education (at any stage), can lead to difficulties in finding employment, which often results in the vicious cycle of being 'bound' by one's experience as a poor and disabled person to remain in the same social structure and experience socio-economic exclusion.[185][186] In short, this vicious cycle exacerbates the lack of economic, social, and cultural capital for disabled people with a low socio-economic background. On the other hand, a disabled person of a high socio-economic status, may have an easier time accessing appropriate (special) education or treatment - for example by having access to better aids, resources, or programmes that can help them succeed.[187][188]
Disability culture
[edit]Sport
[edit]
The Paralympic Games (meaning "alongside the Olympics") are held after the (Summer and Winter) Olympics. The Paralympic Games include athletes with a wide range of physical disabilities. In member countries, organizations exist to organize competition in the Paralympic sports on levels ranging from recreational to elite (for example, Disabled Sports USA and BlazeSports America in the United States).
The Paralympics developed from a rehabilitation program for British war veterans with spinal injuries. In 1948, Sir Ludwig Guttman, a neurologist working with World War II veterans with spinal injuries at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Aylesbury in the UK, began using sport as part of the rehabilitation programs of his patients.
In 2006, the Extremity Games were formed for physically disabled people, specifically limb loss or limb difference, to be able to compete in extreme sports.[189]
Demographics
[edit]Estimates of worldwide and country-wide numbers of disabled people are problematic. The varying approaches taken to defining disability notwithstanding, demographers agree that the world population of individuals with disabilities is very large. For example, in 2012, the World Health Organization estimated a world population of 6.5 billion people. Of those, nearly 650 million people, or 10%, were estimated to be moderately or severely disabled.[190] In 2018 the International Labour Organization estimated that about a billion people, one-seventh of the world population, had disabilities, 80% of them in developing countries, and 80% of working age. Excluding disabled people from the workforce was reckoned to cost up to 7% of gross domestic product.[191]
United States
[edit]According to the Centers for Disease Control's Morbidity and Mortality weekly report, one-fourth of people in the United States are reported to be disabled as of 2016. 10% of young adults were reported to have mental disabilities. The rates of mobility-related issues were highest among middle-aged people and elderly people, with 18.1% and 26.9%, respectively.[192] In terms of race or ethnicity, Asians have the lowest reported rate of disability at around 10%, while Native Americans, the ethnic group with the highest reported incidence, are reported to have a disability rate at an estimated 30% of adults. African Americans had a higher reported disability rate of 25%, compared to 16% for white adults and 17% for Hispanic people.[193]
Canada
[edit]22.3% of Canadians over 15 are reported to have a disability, or 6,246,640 people, according to the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability Reports. In Canada, women and older people are more likely to be disabled than working-class men. In comparison to working-age persons between 25 and 65, seniors over 65 reported a disability rate of 38%, which is nearly twice as high. In Canada, women over 15 had a reported disability rate of 24.3%, compared to men's 20%.[194] According to reports from the 2017 Canadian Survey of Disability, South Asians over the age of 15 in Canada had the greatest proportion of disability at 4%, while Latin Americans had a lower rate at 1%.[195]
Australia
[edit]Nearly one in five Australians, or 4.4 million people, were estimated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to have a disability. A mental or behavioral issue was reported in over 25% of Australians with disabilities. Male prevalence was 17.6 million, while female prevalence was somewhat higher at 17.8 million between the sexes. Age-wise, 11.6% of adults between 0 and 64 in Australia had a disability, compared to 49.6% of seniors 65 and over. 53.4% of Australians aged 15 to 64 who have a disability are employed.[196]
United Kingdom
[edit]According to the House of Commons Library, 14.6 million, or 22%, of the population in the UK, were reported to be disabled in 2020–2021. In the UK, there were 9% of children, 21% of working-age people, and 42% of persons over the state pension age who were disabled or impaired.[197] Approximately 29% of White individuals, 27% of mixed-race people, 22% of Asian people, 21% of Black people, and 19% of people from other ethnic groups were reported as having impairments or disabilities, according to the Life Opportunities Survey, which surveyed 35,875 people in 2011. When compared to men, women are a little more likely than men to have a disability, with 31% of women reportedly having one as opposed to 26% of men, according to results of another survey taken the same year.[198]
China
[edit]According to Twenty-Year Trends in the Prevalence of Disability in China, a medical publication from the National Library of Medicine, there were an estimated 84.6 million Chinese individuals living with a disability in 2006. In a 2006 poll of 83,342 men and 78,137 women, the age groups with the highest reported rates of disability are 18–44-year-old males (22.5%) and 65–74-year-old females (22.8%), according to polls published in the journal that were representative of the country as a whole. In China, the percentage of people with disabilities varies substantially between urban and rural regions, with men and women having reported rates of 72.4% and 72.2%, respectively, in rural China, compared to reported rates of 27.6% and 27.8%, respectively, in urban China. Hearing and speech disabilities are the most commonly reported in China, with men being more affected than women at rates 39.6% and 36.2% among disabled people, respectively.[199]
South Korea
[edit]In South Korea, there were accounted to be 2.517 million people with disabilities in total, or roughly 5.0% of the population, in 2018. When compared to Koreans without disabilities, people with disabilities spent an average of 56.5 days in medical facilities, which was 2.6 more than the national average. 34.9% of the entire workforce was employed in jobs connected to disabilities. Families with disabilities made an average income of 41.53 million won, or 71.3% of total family earnings. According to the Korean 2020 Statistics on the Disabled The majority of persons with disabilities needed help with "cleaning" and "using transportation", among other everyday tasks.[200]
Developing nations
[edit]Disability is more common in developing than in developed nations. The connection between disability and poverty is thought to be part of a "vicious cycle" in which these constructs are mutually reinforcing.[201]
See also
[edit]Bibliography
[edit]- Vega, Eugenio (2022) Crónica del siglo de la peste. Pandemias, discapacidad y diseño. Madrid, Experimenta Libros. ISBN 978-84-18049-73-6
- Williamson, Bess (2019). Accessible America. A History of Disability and Design. New York University Press. ISBN 978-1-4798024-94
References
[edit]Citations
[edit]- ^ CDC (April 3, 2024). "Disability and Health Overview". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Archived from the original on October 7, 2025. Retrieved April 24, 2024.
- ^ Francis L, Silvers A (October 1, 2016). "Perspectives on the Meaning of "Disability"". AMA Journal of Ethics. 18 (10): 1025–1033. doi:10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.10.pfor2-1610. ISSN 2376-6980. PMID 27780027.
- ^ Resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, A/RES/61/106. UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 24 January 2007. [accessed 27 December 2020]
- ^ "Medical and Social Models of Disability". Office of Developmental Primary Care. Retrieved February 8, 2024.
- ^ Wright KM (June 1, 2024). "Getting to Disability Justice: A Critical Conceptual Review of Disability Models in U.S. Social Work". The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare. 51 (1): 70–81. doi:10.15453/0191-5096.4723. ISSN 0191-5096.
- ^ Barnes E (2014). "Valuing Disability, Causing Disability". Ethics. 125 (1): 88–113. doi:10.1086/677021. ISSN 0014-1704. JSTOR 10.1086/677021.
- ^ Moore M (January 2015). "Religious Attitudes toward the Disabled (2015)". infidels.org. The Secular Web. Archived from the original on May 4, 2020. Retrieved April 30, 2020.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Sneed (2021). "Disability and Infanticide in Ancient Greece". Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 90 (4): 747. doi:10.2972/hesperia.90.4.0747.
- ^ a b "Plutarch, Lycurgus, chapter 16". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Sneed D (2018). The Life Cycle of Disability in Ancient Greece (Thesis). UCLA.
- ^ "Plutarch, Lycurgus, chapter 1". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ a b "Plato, Republic, Book 5, section 460c". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ "Aristotle, Politics, Book 7, section 1335a". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ "Aristotle, Politics, Book 7, section 1335b". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ Brown R (1994). Florida's First People: 12,000 Years of Human History. Pineapple Press. p. 25. ISBN 1-56164-032-8.
- ^ Milanich JT (1994). Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida. p. 75. ISBN 0-8130-1273-2.
- ^ Kağnici G (December 28, 2018). "Insights from Sumerian Mythology: The Myth of Enki And Ninmaḫ and the History of Disability". Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi. 33 (2): 429–450. doi:10.18513/egetid.502714. ISSN 0257-4152. S2CID 165868664.
- ^ Loebl WY, Nunn JF (August 1997). "Staffs as Walking Aids in Ancient Egypt and Palestine". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 90 (8): 450–454. doi:10.1177/014107689709000811. ISSN 0141-0768. PMC 1296463. PMID 9307002.
- ^ a b "Hippocrates, De articulis, Part 53". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ "Hippocrates, De articulis, Part 12". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ "Hippocrates, De articulis, Part 62". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ "Homer, Iliad, Book 22". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ a b Liston MA, Snyder LM, Rotroff SI (2018). The Agora Bone Well. Hesperia. Princeton (N. J.): American School of Classical Studies at Athens. ISBN 978-0-87661-550-8.
- ^ "Xenophon, Memorabilia, Book 3, chapter 12". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ "Herodotus, The Histories, Book 7, chapter 229". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ "Aristotle: History of Animals IX". penelope.uchicago.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ "Lysias, On the Refusal of a Pension, section 6". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ "Plato, Laws, Book 11". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ "Aristotle, Athenian Constitution, chapter 55". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ Sneed D (August 2020). "The architecture of access: ramps at ancient Greek healing sanctuaries". Antiquity. 94 (376): 1015–1029. doi:10.15184/aqy.2020.123. ISSN 0003-598X.
- ^ Geggel L (July 22, 2020). "Ancient Greeks may have built 'disability ramps' on some temples". LiveScience. Archived from the original on July 29, 2020. Retrieved August 7, 2020.
- ^ "Lysias, On the Refusal of a Pension, section 13". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ a b c "Herodotus, The Histories, Book 1, chapter 34". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ Penrose WD (June 2015). "The Discourse of Disability in Ancient Greece". Classical World. 108 (4): 499–523. doi:10.1353/clw.2015.0068. ISSN 1558-9234.
- ^ "Demosthenes, On the Crown, section 67". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
- ^ a b Braddock D, Parrish S (2001). "An Institutional History of Disability". In Albrecht GL, Seelman KD, Bury M (eds.). Handbook of Disability Studies. SAGE. pp. 11–68. doi:10.4135/9781412976251. ISBN 978-0-7619-2874-4.
- ^ Stiker H (2000). A History of Disability. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. p. 91.
- ^ Foucault M (1980). The History of Sexuality, vol. 1. New York: Vintage.
- ^ a b Grue L, Heiberg A (November 4, 2006). "Notes on the History of Normality – Reflections on the Work of Quetelet and Galton". Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research. 8 (4): 232. doi:10.1080/15017410600608491.
- ^ Davis LJ (1995). "Constructing Normalcy". Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body. Verso. pp. 23–49. ISBN 978-1-85984-007-8.
- ^ Bogdan R (1998). Freak Show: Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit.
- ^ "Disabled people". Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. Retrieved June 7, 2023.
- ^ Barlow, Kathleen (2006). "Inbreeding, Incest, and the Incest Taboo: The State of Knowledge at the Turn of the Century". American Anthropologist. 108 (2): 447–48. doi:10.1525/aa.2006.108.2.447.
- ^ a b Russell M, Malhotra R (2002). "Capitalism and Disability". Socialist Register. 38: 212–213. ISSN 0081-0606.
- ^ Marini I, Graf NM, Millington M (2017). "The History of Treatment Toward People With Disabilities". Psychosocial Aspects of Disability (2nd ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-0-8261-8062-9.
- ^ Oliver 1990.
- ^ a b Mullaney C (April 13, 2019). "Disability Studies: Foundations & Key Concepts". JSTOR Daily. Retrieved October 8, 2022.
- ^ Nikora et al. 2004, p. 5.
- ^ a b c Donovan 2012, p. 12.
- ^ Russell 2019, p. 4.
- ^ Krause N, Frank JW, Dasinger LK, Sullivan TJ, Sinclair SJ (September 25, 2001). "Determinants of duration of disability and return-to-work after work-related injury and illness: Challenges for future research". American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 40 (4): 464–484. doi:10.1002/ajim.1116. ISSN 0271-3586. PMID 11598995.
- ^ "Regulations To Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act, as Amended". Federal Register. 2011. Archived from the original on August 22, 2016. Retrieved January 9, 2019.
- ^ "The Rhetorical Dimensions of Ableism". Ableist Rhetoric. 2019. pp. 1–25. doi:10.1515/9780271085296-002. ISBN 978-0-271-08529-6. S2CID 242299440.
- ^ "Disability Social History Project – Timeline". Disabilityhistory.org. Archived from the original on September 1, 2017. Retrieved August 11, 2012.
- ^ Cooper, Rory A, Hisaichi Ohnabe, Douglas A. Hobson (2006). An Introduction to Rehabilitation Engineering. CRC Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-1-4200-1249-1.
- ^ "Student Accessibility Services: Dragon Naturally Speaking". University of New Hampshire. Archived from the original on April 8, 2015.
- ^ Sobh T (2007). Innovations and Advanced Techniques in Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering. Springer. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-4020-6268-1.
- ^ "Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)". W3C. Archived from the original on September 4, 2008. Retrieved January 29, 2013.
- ^ "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0". W3C. Archived from the original on February 18, 2011. Retrieved January 29, 2013.
- ^ Nikora et al. 2004, pp. 6–7.
- ^ Shakespeare, T., Watson, N. (2001). "The social model of disability: An outdated ideology?". In Barnartt, S.N., Altman, B.M. (eds.). Exploring Theories and Expanding Methodologies: Where we are and where we need to go. Research in Social Science and Disability. Vol. 2. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 9–28. doi:10.1016/S1479-3547(01)80018-X. ISBN 978-0-7623-0773-9.
- ^ Parker CJ, May A, Mitchell V, Burrows A (2015). "Capturing Volunteered Information for Inclusive Service Design: Potential Benefits and Challenges". The Design Journal. 16 (11): 197–218. doi:10.2752/175630613X13584367984947. S2CID 110716823. Archived from the original on May 10, 2022. Retrieved January 8, 2019.
- ^ Garden R (2010). "Disability and narrative: new directions for medicine and the medical humanities". Med. Humanit. 36 (2): 70–74. doi:10.1136/jmh.2010.004143. PMID 21393285.
- ^ Mallon R (2014). Zalta EN (ed.). Naturalistic Approaches to Social Construction (Winter 2014 ed.). Archived from the original on March 18, 2019. Retrieved February 23, 2016.
- ^ Freidson E (1970). Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. Harper and Row. pp. 205–10. ISBN 978-0-06-042205-9.
- ^ Burch S (2009). Encyclopedia of American Disability History Vol. 2. Facts on File. pp. 543–44. ISBN 978-0-8160-7030-5.
- ^ Kafer A (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press.
- ^ "International organisations report on disability". Disabled Persons Assembly New Zealand. August 2011. Archived from the original on February 5, 2013. Retrieved March 6, 2013.
- ^ Kaplan D. "Disability Model". World Institute on Disability. Archived from the original on April 25, 2012. Retrieved October 30, 2011.
- ^ Lum D (2010). Culturally Competent Practice: A Framework for Understanding Diverse Groups and Justice Issues. Cengage Learning. p. 449. ISBN 978-0-8400-3443-4.
- ^ Olkin R (2012). What Psychotherapists Should Know About Disability. Guilford Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-4625-0613-2.
- ^ Nikora et al. 2004, pp. 5–6.
- ^ Nikora et al. 2004, p. 6.
- ^ DePoy & Gilson 2004.
- ^ a b Nikora et al. 2004, p. 7.
- ^ "Economic Model of Disability". Michigan Disability Rights Coalition. Archived from the original on July 28, 2012. Retrieved August 11, 2012.
- ^ Smith, T.B. (2012). A New and Emerging Model of Disability: The Consumer Model. White Paper. The Pennsylvania State University
- ^ Aichner, T., Shaltoni, A.M. (2018). "Marketing of specialised products and services to consumers with disabilities: exploring the role of advertising, country-of-origin, and e-commerce". The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research. 28 (2): 115–36. doi:10.1080/09593969.2017.1364658. S2CID 169024657.
- ^ Weiner, B., Perry, R.P., Magnusson, J. (1988). "An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 55 (5): 738–48. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738. PMID 2974883.
- ^ Lerner M (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.
- ^ "Cerebral Palsy: a Guide for Care". The Nemours Foundation. Archived from the original on July 17, 2007. Retrieved July 29, 2007.
- ^ Meyers S (2014). "Chapter 23. The past dividing the present". In Mitchell D, Karr V (eds.). Crises, Conflict and Disability: Ensuring Equality. Routledge. p. 195.
- ^ "Groups and individuals honored at PWD Day". The Manila Times. May 20, 2014. Archived from the original on July 19, 2014. Retrieved July 15, 2014.
- ^ Department for International Development. "Recognising & Implementing Housing Rights CSCF449". Archived from the original on July 19, 2014. Retrieved July 15, 2014.
- ^ Dunn DS, Andrews EE (2015). "Person-first and identity-first language: Developing psychologists' cultural competence using disability language". The American Psychologist. 70 (3): 255–64. doi:10.1037/a0038636. PMID 25642702.
- ^ Davis, Ken. (January 3, 2009]. The Social Model of Disability Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living. Archived January 3, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Haller B. "Journalists should learn to carefully traverse a variety of disability terminology | National Center on Disability and Journalism". Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Arizona State University. Archived from the original on March 24, 2016. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
- ^ Lum D (2010). Culturally Competent Practice: A Framework for Understanding. Cengage Learning. p. 441. ISBN 978-0-8400-3443-4.
- ^ "AHEAD Statement on Language | Association on Higher Education and Disability". Archived from the original on February 9, 2021. Retrieved February 9, 2021.
- ^ "Definition of handicap in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)". Archived from the original on April 3, 2013. Retrieved April 12, 2013.
- ^ "Online Etymology Dictionary". Archived from the original on September 15, 2017. Retrieved April 12, 2013.
- ^ D'Mello L, Monteiro M, BM G (July 24, 2017). "Psycho-Social Problems faced by Persons with Disability". International Journal of Management, Technology, and Social Sciences: 1–7. doi:10.47992/ijmts.2581.6012.0019. ISSN 2581-6012. S2CID 231214034.
- ^ GOV.UK https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/inclusive-language-words-to-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability
- ^ Bradley J. Cardinal & Marc D. Spaziani (2003). "ADA compliance and the accessibility of physical activity facilities in western Oregon". American Journal of Health Promotion. 17 (3): 197–201. doi:10.4278/0890-1171-17.3.197. PMID 12545588. S2CID 46766567.
- ^ Cardinal BJ (2003). "Fitness for all: Is your club ADA compliant?". Club Industry. 19 (5): 31–33.
- ^ "Invisible Disabilities: List & Information" (PDF). Disabled World. October 28, 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 25, 2021. Retrieved February 15, 2021.
- ^ Stuart H (September 2006). "Mental illness and employment discrimination". Current Opinion in Psychiatry. 19 (5): 522–6. doi:10.1097/01.yco.0000238482.27270.5d. PMID 16874128. S2CID 45821626.
- ^ Furrie, Adele, Rebecca Gewurtz, Wendy Porch, Cameron Crawford, Maureen Haan, and John Stapleton. "Episodic Disabilities in Canada." 2016
- ^ "On Being a Cripple". The Social Medicine Reader. Vol. 2 (3rd ed.). 2020. pp. 37–47. doi:10.1515/9781478004363-005. ISBN 978-1-4780-0436-3.
- ^ Muzikar D (April 20, 2015). "The Autism Puzzle Piece: A symbol that's going to stay or go?". The Art of Autism. Archived from the original on April 1, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2017.
- ^ a b "Disability Rights Wisconsin". Disabilityrightswi.org. Archived from the original on March 19, 2012. Retrieved August 11, 2012.
- ^ Bagenstos S (2009). Law and the Contradictions of the Disability Rights Movement. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12449-1. JSTOR j.ctt1npkj3. OCLC 262432366.
- ^ Löve L, Traustadóttir R, Rice J (March 26, 2018). "Achieving disability equality: Empowering disabled people to take the lead". Social Inclusion. 6 (1): 1–8. doi:10.17645/si.v6i1.1180. hdl:20.500.11815/760.
- ^ Kemple M, Ahmad F, Girijashanker S (2011). "Shaping Disability Rights through Shaping the Disability Movement". Journal of Human Rights Practice. 3 (3): 355–63. doi:10.1093/jhuman/hur019.
- ^ Satubaldina A (November 27, 2020). "We Seek to Promote a Human Rights Based Approach to Disability". The Astana Times. Kazakhstan. Archived from the original on December 2, 2020. Retrieved December 3, 2020.
- ^ Berne P (June 10, 2015). "Disability Justice - a working draft by Patty Berne". Sins Invalid - An Unashamed Claim to Beauty in the Face of Invisibility. Retrieved October 7, 2022.
- ^ a b Kayess R, French P (2008). "Out of darkness into light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities". Human Rights Law Review. 8: 1–34. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngm044.
- ^ "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)". United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Disability. Archived from the original on October 2, 2016. Retrieved January 19, 2021.
- ^ "International Year for Disabled Persons". Public Health Reports. 95 (5): 498–499. 1980. PMC 1422742. PMID 6893494.
- ^ McIntyre I (April 26, 2023). "People With Disability Australian Protest Timeline". The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved March 31, 2024.
- ^ "OSCE supports roundtable discussion on the rights of persons with disabilities in Nur-Sultan". Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. November 14, 2019. Archived from the original on November 29, 2020. Retrieved December 4, 2020.
- ^ "Fact Sheet on Persons with Disabilities" (PDF). Division for Inclusive Social Development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs:Enable. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 30, 2020. Retrieved August 27, 2018.
- ^ Carey AC (2009). On the Margins of Citizenship: Intellectual Disability and Civil Rights in Twentieth-Century America. Temple University Press. ISBN 978-1-59213-697-1. JSTOR j.ctt14bs8th.
- ^ Sépulchre M (June 1, 2020). "Ensuring equal citizenship for disabled people: A matter of rights or a matter of costs?". Alter. 14 (2): 114–127. doi:10.1016/j.alter.2020.03.001. ISSN 1875-0672.
- ^ Heron R, Murray (2003). ASSISTING DISABLED PERSONS IN FINDING EMPLOYMENT A practical guide (2nd ed.). Geneva: International Labour Organization. ISBN 92-2-115116-6.
- ^ "Abuse in Disability Communities". The Hotline. Retrieved February 21, 2024.
- ^ a b Transforming Disability into Ability. 2003. doi:10.1787/9789264158245-en. ISBN 978-92-64-19887-6.
- ^ Hough A (October 23, 2012). "'Disability hate crimes' rise by a quarter in a year". Telegraph. Archived from the original on January 11, 2022. Retrieved January 29, 2013.
- ^ Canada S (October 14, 2015). "Canada Pension Plan disability benefits: Overview". www.canada.ca. Retrieved February 8, 2024.
- ^ Australian Progress, McIntyre I (February 2, 2022). "Lessons from the Campaign to Stop Independent Assessments Webinar". The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved March 31, 2024.
- ^ a b Labriola M, Lund T (2007). "Self-reported sickness absence as a risk marker of future disability pension. Prospective findings from the DWECS/DREAM study 1990–2004". Int J Med Sci. 4 (3): 153–58. doi:10.7150/ijms.4.153. PMC 1885553. PMID 17554400.
- ^ Virtanen M, Kivimäki M, Vahtera J, Elovainio M, Sund R, Virtanen P, Ferrie JE (2006). "Sickness absence as a risk factor for job termination, unemployment, and disability pension among temporary and permanent employees". Occup Environ Med. 63 (3): 212–217. doi:10.1136/oem.2005.020297. PMC 2078149. PMID 16497865.
- ^ Piecek M, Perrin C, Tabin JP, Probst I (January 17, 2019). "The 'compliant', the 'pacified' and the 'rebel': experiences with Swiss disability insurance". Disability & Society. 34 (4): 583–606. doi:10.1080/09687599.2018.1545115. ISSN 0968-7599.
Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- ^ Tabin JP, Piecek M, Perrin C, Probst I (September 19, 2019). "Three Dimensions in the Register of Shame". Review of Disability Studies. 15 (3): 1–19. ISSN 1552-9215. Archived from the original on February 4, 2020. Retrieved January 18, 2020.
- ^ Russell 2019, p. 14.
- ^ a b Blick RN, Litz KS, Thornhill MG, Goreczny AJ (June–July 2016). "Do inclusive work environments matter? Effects of community-integrated employment on quality of life for individuals with intellectual disabilities". Research in Developmental Disabilities. 53–54: 358–366. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.02.015. PMID 26977937.
- ^ a b Lindstrom L, Hirano KA, McCarthy C, Alverson CV (May 2014). "'Just having a job': Career advancement for low-wage workers with intellectual and developmental disabilities". Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 37 (1): 40–49. doi:10.1177/2165143414522092. S2CID 145212407.
- ^ a b Banks P, Jahoda A, Dagnan D, Kemp J, Williams V (2010). "Supported Employment for People with Intellectual Disability: The Effects of Job Breakdown on Psychological Well-Being". Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 23 (4): 344–354. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00541.x.
- ^ Yeo 2005.
- ^ World Health Organization, World report on disability, 2011.
- ^ "Centro DÍBÁ". Archived from the original on January 23, 2015. Retrieved May 10, 2022.
- ^ a b c d Stough LM, Peek L (July 2010). "Children With Disabilities in the Context of Disaster: A Social Vulnerability Perspective" (PDF). Child Development. 81 (4): 1260–1270. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01466.x. hdl:1969.1/153154. ISSN 0009-3920. LCCN e34000503. OCLC 641792335. PMID 20636694. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 12, 2013. Retrieved January 31, 2013.
- ^ Stough LM, Sharp AN, Curt D, Wilker N (2010). "Disaster Case Management and Individuals With Disabilities" (PDF). Rehabilitation Psychology. 55 (3): 211–220. doi:10.1037/a0020079. hdl:1969.1/153155. ISSN 0090-5550. PMID 20804264. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 12, 2013. Retrieved January 31, 2013.
- ^ a b Stough 2009.
- ^ McAdams Ducy, Stough & Clark 2012.
- ^ McAdams Ducy E, Stough LM (July 29, 2011). "Exploring the support role of special education teachers after Hurricane Ike: Children with significant disabilities". Journal of Family Issues. 32 (10): 1325–45. doi:10.1177/0192513X11412494. S2CID 146605276.
- ^ "Effective Emergency Management: Making Improvements for Communities and People with Disabilities". F Street, Washington: National Council on Disability. August 12, 2009. Archived from the original on February 12, 2013. Retrieved January 29, 2013.
- ^ "Disability, natural disasters and emergency situations". Division for Inclusive Social Development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs:Enable. May 31, 2011. Archived from the original on February 2, 2013. Retrieved January 29, 2013.
- ^ Woodward K (2015). "9". In Adams R, Reiss B, Serlin D (eds.). Key Words for Disability Studies. New York: New York University Press. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-1-4798-4115-8.
- ^ Kafer A (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press. p. 8.
- ^ a b Reeve D (2004). "Psycho-emotional dimensions of disability and the social model" (PDF). In Barnes C, Mercer G (eds.). Reeve Chapter 2004. Leeds, UK: The Disability Press. pp. 83–100. ISBN 978-0-9528450-8-9. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 5, 2016. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
- ^ Morris J (1991). Pride Against Prejudice Transforming Attitudes to Disability (PDF). Aylesbury, Bucks, UK: The Women's Press. pp. 21, 22. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 23, 2016. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
- ^ Linton S (1998). Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York: NYU Press. pp. 19–21. ISBN 978-0-8147-5134-3. Archived from the original on September 30, 2013. Retrieved May 3, 2016.
- ^ a b Dolmage JT (2014). Disability Rhetoric (1st ed.). Syracuse University Press. pp. 31–61. ISBN 978-0-8156-3324-2.
- ^ Young S (July 2, 2012). "We're not here for your inspiration". Ramp up. Australia: ABC Services. Archived from the original on April 28, 2016. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
- ^ Murray S (2008). Representing Autism Culture, Narrative, Fascination. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1-84631-092-8.
- ^ Hardin, Marie Myers, Hardin, Brent (June 2004). "The 'Supercrip' in sport media: Wheelchair athletes discuss hegemony's disabled hero". Sociology of Sport Online. 7 (1). School of Physical Education, University of Otago. ISSN 1461-8192. Archived from the original on August 19, 2004. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
- ^ Cheyne R (2019). Disability, Literature, Genre: Representation and Affect in Contemporary Fiction (PDF) (1 ed.). United Kingdom: Liverpool University Press. pp. 62–3. ISBN 978-1-78962-077-1. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 21, 2024 – via OAPEN.
Although the authors do not expand on their analysis in depth, they do not need to: supercrip representations are widely assumed to be 'inherently regressive' (Schalk 75). To label a representation as deploying this stereotype is 'the ultimate scholarly insult', a form of critical dismissal which decisively locates that text as unproductive from a disability studies perspective (Schalk 71).
- ^ a b c Schalk S (2016). "Reevaluating the Supercrip" (PDF). Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies. 10 (1): 71–86. doi:10.3828/jlcds.2016.5. ISSN 1757-6458. S2CID 147281453. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 8, 2022.
- ^ Row-Heyveld L (2015). "Reading Batman, Writing X-Men Superpowers and Disabilities in the First-Year Seminar". Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture. 15 (3): 519–26. doi:10.1215/15314200-2917105. S2CID 146299487.
- ^ Mitchell DT, Snyder SL (2000). Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-06748-0.
- ^ Silver RL (1982). Coping with an undesirable life event: a study of early reactions to physical disability (Thesis). OCLC 25949964.
- ^ Barnes C (March 15, 1992). Disabling Imagery and the Media. Krumlin, Halifax: Ryburn Publishing. ISBN 1-85331-042-5.
- ^ a b Byrne P (May 18, 2002). "I Am Sam". BMJ: British Medical Journal. 324 (7347): 1223. doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1223. ISSN 0959-8138. PMC 1123184.
- ^ Pettey HB (2020). Mind Reeling: Psychopathology on Film. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-1-4384-8102-9.
- ^ Reynolds TE (2008). Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality. Brazos Press. ISBN 978-1-4412-0263-5.
- ^ "Disability stereotypes in the media | Aruma". Aruma Disability Services. August 24, 2020. Retrieved October 8, 2022.
- ^ Siebers T (2005). "Disability Aesthetics". PMLA. 120 (2): 542–546. doi:10.1632/S0030812900167860. ISSN 0030-8129. JSTOR 25486181. S2CID 233314914.
- ^ Owens J (March 2015). "Exploring the critiques of the social model of disability: the transformative possibility of Arendt's notion of power". Sociology of Health & Illness. 37 (3): 385–403. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12199. PMID 25524639.
- ^ Brown SE (Spring 2002). "What Is Disability Culture?". Disability Studies Quarterly. 22 (2): 34–50. doi:10.18061/dsq.v22i2.343.
- ^ Reeve D (2002). "Negotiating Psycho-Emotional Dimensions of Disability and their Influence on Identity Constructions" (PDF). Disability & Society. 17 (5): 493–508. doi:10.1080/09687590220148487. S2CID 17324956. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 28, 2016. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
- ^ Begum N (March 1992). "Disabled Women and the Feminist Agenda". Feminist Review. 40 (1): 70–84. doi:10.1057/fr.1992.6. S2CID 143930177.
- ^ Pettinicchio D, Maroto M (January 1, 2017). "Employment Outcomes Among Men and Women with Disabilities: How the Intersection of Gender and Disability Status Shapes Labor Market Inequality". In Altman BM (ed.). Factors in Studying Employment for Persons with Disability. Research in Social Science and Disability Vol. 10. Emerald Publishing Limited. pp. 3–33. doi:10.1108/s1479-354720170000010003. ISBN 978-1-78714-606-8. S2CID 158400534.
- ^ Lawson A (2016). European Union Non-Discrimination Law and Intersectionality: Investigating the Triangle of Racial, Gender and Disability Discrimination. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-13921-8.
- ^ "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) | United Nations Enable". www.un.org. Retrieved February 21, 2024.
- ^ Theo Vos, et al. (GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators) (2017). "Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016". The Lancet. 390 (10100): 1211–1259. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2. ISSN 0140-6736. PMC 5605509. PMID 28919117.
- ^ Frederick A, Shifrer D (July 11, 2018). "Race and Disability: From Analogy to Intersectionality". Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. 5 (2): 200–214. doi:10.1177/2332649218783480. ISSN 2332-6492. S2CID 150155324.
- ^ Hendricks C, Lansford JE, Deater-Deckard K, Bornstein MH (July 29, 2013). "Associations Between Child Disabilities and Caregiver Discipline and Violence in Low- and Middle-Income Countries". Child Development. 85 (2): 513–531. doi:10.1111/cdev.12132. ISSN 0009-3920. PMC 4151611. PMID 23895329.
- ^ Sullivan PM, Knutson JF (October 2000). "Maltreatment and disabilities: a population-based epidemiological study". Child Abuse & Neglect. 24 (10): 1257–1273. doi:10.1016/s0145-2134(00)00190-3. PMID 11075694. S2CID 20946280.
- ^ Randall W, Sobsey D, Parrila R (2001). "Ethnicity, disability, and risk for abuse". Developmental Disabilities Bulletin. 29 (1): 60–80.
- ^ Horner-Johnson W, Drum CE (2006). "Prevalence of maltreatment of people with intellectual disabilities: a review of recently published research". Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 12 (1): 57–69. doi:10.1002/mrdd.20097. PMID 16435331.
- ^ Brown J, Cohen P, Johnson JG, Salzinger S (November 1998). "A longitudinal analysis of risk factors for child maltreatment: findings of a 17-year prospective study of officially recorded and self-reported child abuse and neglect". Child Abuse & Neglect. 22 (11): 1065–78. doi:10.1016/s0145-2134(98)00087-8. PMID 9827312.
- ^ Perkins S (January 2012). "An Ecological Perspective on the Comorbidity of Childhood Violence Exposure and Disabilities: Focus on the Ecology of the School". Psychology of Violence. 2 (1): 75–89. doi:10.1037/a0026137. PMC 8494429. PMID 34621555.
- ^ Nelson C (Spring 2010). "Racializing Disability, Disabling Race: Policing Race and Mental Status" (PDF). Berkley Journal of Criminal Law. 15 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 4, 2020. Retrieved May 3, 2016.
- ^ Gerschick T (Summer 2000). "Towards a Theory of Disability and Gender". Signs. 25 (4): 1263–68. doi:10.1086/495558. JSTOR 3175525. S2CID 144519468.
- ^ Lennard J. Davis, ed. (May 2, 2013). ""When Black Women Start Going on Prozac ..." The Politics of Race, Gender, and Emotional Distress in Meri Nana-Ama Danquah's Willow Weep for Me". The Disability Studies Reader. Routledge. pp. 415–435. doi:10.4324/9780203077887-41. ISBN 978-0-203-07788-7.
- ^ WomenWatch. "Feature on Women with Disabilities". UN. Archived from the original on September 28, 2017. Retrieved October 24, 2017.
- ^ Garland-Thomson R (Winter 2005). "Feminist Disability Studies". Signs. 30 (2): 1557–87. doi:10.1086/423352. S2CID 144603782.
- ^ Ong-Dean C (2009). Distinguishing Disability. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226630021.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-226-63001-4.
- ^ a b Lustig DC, Strauser DR (July 2007). "Causal Relationships Between Poverty and Disability". Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 50 (4): 194–202. doi:10.1177/00343552070500040101. S2CID 144496704.
- ^ Neufeldt AH (1995). "Empirical Dimensions of Discrimination against Disabled People". Health and Human Rights. 1 (2): 174–189. doi:10.2307/4065213. ISSN 1079-0969. JSTOR 4065213. PMID 10395720.
- ^ Grech S (December 2011). "Poverty and disability". Disability & Society. 26 (7): 888–891. doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.618747. S2CID 144977018.
- ^ Jenkins R (1991). "Disability and Social Stratification". The British Journal of Sociology. 42 (4): 557–580. doi:10.2307/591447. JSTOR 591447. PMID 1838293.
- ^ Lukemeyer A, Meyers MK, Smeeding T (2000). "Expensive Children in Poor Families: Out-of-Pocket Expenditures for the Care of Disabled and Chronically Ill Children in Welfare Families". Journal of Marriage and Family. 62 (2): 399–415. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00399.x. ISSN 0022-2445.
- ^ Barnes C, Sheldon A (December 2010). "Disability, politics and poverty in a majority world context". Disability & Society. 25 (7): 771–782. doi:10.1080/09687599.2010.520889. S2CID 144808946.
- ^ Soldatic K, Pini B (November 2009). "The three Ds of welfare reform: disability, disgust and deservingness". Australian Journal of Human Rights. 15 (1): 77–95. doi:10.1080/1323238X.2009.11910862. S2CID 148904296.
- ^ Auerbach S (October 2002). "'Why Do They Give the Good Classes to Some and Not to Others?' Latino Parent Narratives of Struggle in a College Access Program". Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education. 104 (7): 1369–1392. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00207.
- ^ Perna LW, Titus MA (2005). "The Relationship between Parental Involvement as Social Capital and College Enrollment: An Examination of Racial/Ethnic Group Differences". The Journal of Higher Education. 76 (5): 485–518. doi:10.1353/jhe.2005.0036. S2CID 32290790. Project MUSE 185966.
- ^ "First Extremity Games was first class success". oandp.com. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved March 6, 2013.
- ^ "Disability World Report". World Health Organization. 2011. Archived from the original on January 19, 2015. Retrieved January 8, 2015.
- ^ Jack A (May 11, 2018). "For many, disability is part of what it means to be human" (Special report Modern workplace: Disability). Financial Times. Bracken House; London: Nikkei. ISSN 0307-1766. Archived from the original on August 15, 2018. Retrieved August 14, 2018.
- ^ Okoro CA (2018). "Prevalence of Disabilities and Health Care Access by Disability Status and Type Among Adults — United States, 2016". MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 67 (32): 882–887. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6732a3. ISSN 0149-2195. PMC 6095650. PMID 30114005.
- ^ CDC (October 25, 2019). "Infographic: Adults with Disabilities: Ethnicity and Race | CDC". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved September 22, 2022.
- ^ Government of Canada SC (November 28, 2018). "A demographic, employment and income profile of Canadians with disabilities aged 15 years and over, 2017". www150.statcan.gc.ca. Retrieved October 5, 2022.
- ^ Government of Canada SC (December 3, 2020). "The Daily — A profile of Canadians with a mobility disability and groups designated as visible minorities with a disability". www150.statcan.gc.ca. Retrieved October 5, 2022.
- ^ "Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2018 | Australian Bureau of Statistics". www.abs.gov.au. September 25, 2020. Retrieved October 5, 2022.
- ^ "Family Resources Survey: financial year 2020 to 2021". GOV.UK. Retrieved October 5, 2022.
- ^ "Life Opportunities Survey: wave 1 results". GOV.UK. Retrieved October 5, 2022.
- ^ Zheng X, Chen G, Song X, Liu J, Yan L, Du W, Pang L, Zhang L, Wu J, Zhang B, Zhang J (November 1, 2011). "Twenty-year trends in the prevalence of disability in China". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 89 (11): 788–797. doi:10.2471/BLT.11.089730. ISSN 0042-9686. PMC 3209727. PMID 22084524.
- ^ "문서뷰어". kostat.go.kr. Retrieved October 8, 2022.
- ^ Yeo R., Moore K. (2003). "Including disabled people in poverty reduction work: 'Nothing about us, without us'". World Development. 31 (3): 571–90. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00218-8.
Sources
[edit]- DePoy E, Gilson SF (2004). Rethinking Disability: Principles for Professional and Social Change. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole. ISBN 978-0-534-54929-9.
- Donovan R (March 1, 2012). "The Global Economics of Disability" (PDF). Return on Disability. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 13, 2012. Retrieved August 11, 2012.
- McAdams Ducy E, Stough LM, Clark MC (2012). "Choosing Agency in the Midst of Vulnerability: Using Critical Disability Theory to Examine a Disaster Narrative". In Steinberg SR, Cannella GS (eds.). Critical Qualitative Research Reader. New York: Peter Lang. ISBN 978-1-4331-0688-0.
- Nikora LW, Karapu R, Hickey H, Te Awekotuku N (2004). "Disabled Maori and Disability Support Options". Maori & Psychology Research Unit, University of Waikato. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 13, 2020. Retrieved August 11, 2012.
- Oliver M (1990). The Politics of Disablement. London: St. Martin's Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1. ISBN 0-333-43293-2. OCLC 59098076.
- Russell M (2019). Keith Rosenthal (ed.). Capitalism and Disability: Selected Writings by Marta Russell. Haymarket Books. ISBN 978-1-60846-686-3.
- Stough LM (2009). "The Effects of Disaster on the Mental Health of Individuals With Disabilities" (PDF). In Neria Y, Galea S, Norris FH (eds.). Mental Health and Disasters. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-41282-8.
- Yeo R (2005). "Disability, poverty, and the new development agenda" (PDF). Disability Knowledge and Research Programme. Department for International Development (UK Government). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 12, 2011. Retrieved June 19, 2013.
Further reading
[edit]- Albrecht GL, ed. (2006). Encyclopedia of disability. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-0-7619-2565-1. OCLC 62778255.
- Atherton, Martin, ed. 2017. Deafness, Community and Culture in Britain: Leisure and Cohesion, 1945-95. Manchester University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt21216hx.
- Arditi A, Rosenthal B (1998). "Developing an objective definition of visual impairment" (PDF). Vision '96: Proceedings of the International Low Vision Conference. Madrid: 331–34. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 29, 2022.
- Bowe F (1978). Handicapping America: Barriers to disabled people. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-06-010422-1.
- Bohata, Kirsti, Alexandra Jones, Mike Mantin, and Steven Thompson. 2020. Disability in Industrial Britain: A Cultural and Literary History of Impairment in the Coal Industry, 1880-1948. Manchester (UK): Manchester University Press.
- Charlton JI (1998). Nothing about us without us: disability oppression and empowerment. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-22481-0. JSTOR 10.1525/j.ctt1pnqn9.
- Burkhauser RV, Schmeiser MD, Weathers II RR (January 2012). "The Importance of Anti-Discrimination and Workers' Compensation Laws on the Provision of Workplace Accommodations Following the Onset of a Disability". Industrial & Labor Relations Review. 65 (1): 161–180. doi:10.1177/001979391206500109. S2CID 154605646.
- Darling P (August 2007). "Disabilities and the Workplace". Business NH Magazine. 24 (8). Manchester: EBSCO Masterfile Complete. ISSN 1046-9575.
- Glenn E (1995). Walker, Sylvia (ed.). "African American Women with Disabilities: An Overview". Disability and Diversity: New Leadership for a New Era: 66. Archived from the original on September 6, 2009. Alt URL
- Hutchison I, Atherton M, Virdi J, eds. (2020). "Disability and the Victorians: Attitudes, interventions, legacies". Disability and the Victorians. Manchester University Press. doi:10.7765/9781526145727. ISBN 978-1-5261-4572-7.
- Johnstone D (2001). An Introduction to Disability Studies (2nd ed.). Internet archive: Fulton. ISBN 978-1-85346-726-4. OCLC 1244858584.
- Kaushik R (1999). "Access Denied: Can we overcome disabling attitudes". Museum International. 51 (3): 48–52. doi:10.1111/1468-0033.00217. ISSN 1468-0033.
- Kerr A, Shakespeare T (2002). Genetic Politics: from Eugenics to Genome. Cartoons by Suzy Varty. Internet archive: New Clarion Press. ISBN 978-1-873797-25-9. OCLC 1310731470.
- Long, Vicky, Julie Anderson, and Walton Schalick. 2015. Destigmatising Mental Illness?: Professional Politics and Public Education in Britain, 1870-1970. Oxford: Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526103253.
- Masala C, Petretto DR (2008). "From disablement to enablement: conceptual models of disability in the 20th century". Disability and Rehabilitation. 30 (17): 1233–44. doi:10.1080/09638280701602418. ISSN 0963-8288. PMID 18821191. S2CID 19377518.
- Masala C, Petretto DR (2008). Psicologia dell'Handicap e della Riabilitazione [The Psychology of Handicap and Rehabilitation] (in Italian). Rome: Kappa. ISBN 978-88-15-06226-0.
- McGuire, Coreen. 2020. Measuring Difference, Numbering Normal Setting the Standards for Disability in the Interwar Period. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
- Jones, Claire L. 2017. Rethinking Modern Prostheses in Anglo-American Commodity Cultures, 1820-1939. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- McDonagh, Patrick, C. F. Goodey, and Timothy Stainton, eds. 2018. Intellectual Disability: A Conceptual History, 1200-1900. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Metzler, Irina. Fools and Idiots?: Intellectual Disability in the Middle Ages. Manchester University Press, 2016.
- Nielsen, Kim E. 2012. A Disability History of the United States. Boston: Beacon Press.
- O’Brien, Gerald V. 2016. Framing the Moron: The Social Construction of Feeble-Mindedness in the American Eugenic Era. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Pearson, Charlotte, ed. (2006). Direct Payments and Personalisation of Care. Internet archive: Dunedin Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-903765-62-3. OCLC 1280896670.
- Robidoux C (April 7, 2011). "An Overlooked Workforce". Business NH Magazine. Manchester. ISSN 1046-9575.
- Robinson, Michael. 2020. Shell-Shocked British Army Veterans in Ireland, 1918-39: A Difficult Homecoming. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Rose SF (2017). No Right to Be Idle: The Invention of Disability, 1840s–1930s. University of North Carolina Press. pp. xvi, 382. ISBN 978-1-4696-2489-1.
- Wheatcroft, Sue. 2015. Worth Saving: Disabled Children during the Second World War. Manchester University Press.
- Schmidt, Marion Andrea. 2020. Eradicating Deafness?: Genetics, Pathology, and Diversity in Twentieth-Century America. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Turner, David M., and Daniel Blackie. 2018. Disability in the Industrial Revolution: Physical Impairment in British Coalmining, 1780-1880. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- "Work Without Limits". Commonwealth Medicine. Shrewsbury, MA: UMASS Chan Medical School. 2021. Archived from the original on November 13, 2009. Retrieved June 28, 2022.
External links
[edit]
The dictionary definition of disability at Wiktionary
Quotations related to Disability at Wikiquote
Media related to Disabilities at Wikimedia Commons- WHO fact sheet on disability
Disability
View on GrokipediaDefinitions and Classifications
Core Definitions
Disability denotes a state of lacking sufficient power, strength, or ability to perform particular functions or tasks, with the term originating in the 1570s as a combination of the prefix "dis-" (indicating negation or reversal) and "ability," initially referring to physical or legal incapacity by the 1640s.[8] This core concept emphasizes an inherent deficit in capability, distinct from temporary limitations or environmental accommodations.[8] In medical and functional terms, disability is characterized as any condition of the body or mind—termed an impairment—that hinders the performance of certain activities or major life functions, such as walking, seeing, hearing, or cognitive tasks.[2] For instance, the U.S. Social Security Administration defines it as the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable physical or mental impairment expected to last at least 12 months or result in death.[9] Such definitions prioritize verifiable physiological or psychological deficits over subjective experiences, aligning with empirical assessments of bodily function.[10] Internationally, the World Health Organization describes disability as arising from impairments in body functions or structures, leading to activity limitations, though it frames these within interactions with environmental factors; however, the foundational element remains the health condition itself, such as cerebral palsy or depression, causing the functional restriction.[11] In legal contexts, like the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act, a disability constitutes a physical or mental impairment substantially limiting one or more major life activities, a threshold requiring evidence of significant impact on capabilities like learning, breathing, or working.[12] These definitions converge on impairment as the causal root, though thresholds for "substantial" limitation vary by jurisdiction and purpose, reflecting efforts to balance empirical measurement with practical application.[13]Impairment vs. Disability Distinction
The distinction between impairment and disability originates in frameworks like the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), endorsed in 2001, which defines impairment as any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function at the organ level, such as reduced mobility from spinal cord injury or diminished visual acuity from retinal damage.[14] In this schema, disability serves as an umbrella term encompassing not only impairments but also activity limitations (difficulties executing tasks like walking or seeing) and participation restrictions (problems engaging in societal roles like employment), with environmental factors modulating outcomes but impairments forming the foundational causal element.[15] Empirical data from population studies, such as those using ICF metrics, confirm that impairments directly predict activity limitations, with severity of bodily dysfunction correlating to functional deficits independently of social context in over 70% of cases across conditions like arthritis or stroke.[16] Under the medical model, prevalent in clinical practice since the mid-20th century, impairment and disability are often conflated, viewing disability primarily as a direct consequence of biological deficits requiring individual-level interventions like surgery or rehabilitation to restore function.[17] This approach prioritizes empirical measurement of physiological losses, as evidenced by diagnostic tools quantifying grip strength reductions in neuromuscular disorders, which causally limit daily activities without necessitating societal barriers.[18] In contrast, the social model, articulated by scholars like Mike Oliver in the 1980s, posits a stark separation: impairments are mere biological variations or "personal tragedies," while disability arises exclusively from discriminatory environmental and attitudinal barriers, such as inaccessible architecture or employment biases, rendering societal structures the true culprit.[19] Critiques of the social model's bifurcation, drawn from empirical analyses, highlight its underemphasis on causal primacy of impairments; longitudinal studies of conditions like multiple sclerosis show that progressive neural damage accounts for 60-80% of variance in mobility loss and unemployment, even after adjusting for accessibility measures, underscoring that biological mechanisms impose inherent limits not fully ameliorable by social reconfiguration.[20] For chronic diseases, the model's dismissal of impairment's intrinsic effects falters, as metabolic disorders like diabetes demonstrably erode organ function and lifespan via verifiable pathways like hyperglycemia-induced neuropathy, independent of policy interventions.[21] Integrated biopsychosocial perspectives, informed by ICF data, reconcile this by recognizing impairments as the originating cause in disability's causal chain, with social factors as secondary modulators rather than originators, aligning with evidence from randomized trials where medical treatments alleviating impairments yield greater functional gains than barrier removals alone.[22] This distinction underscores that while environments influence participation, denying impairment's deterministic role risks overlooking verifiable physiological realities central to etiology and prognosis.[6]International and Legal Classifications
The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), endorsed by all 194 WHO Member States in 2001, provides a standardized framework for describing health and disability at individual and population levels, emphasizing the interaction between health conditions—such as diseases or injuries—and contextual factors like environmental barriers and personal attributes to assess functioning in body structures, activities, and participation.[14] Unlike earlier models focused solely on impairments, the ICF categorizes disability as arising from mismatches between an individual's capacities and environmental demands, incorporating components such as body functions and structures, activity limitations, participation restrictions, and environmental or personal facilitators/inhibitors, which informs global health policy, rehabilitation planning, and epidemiological data collection.[23] The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 13, 2006, and entering into force on May 3, 2008, defines persons with disabilities as those having long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments that, in interaction with various attitudinal and environmental barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others; this broad, functional definition underpins protections against discrimination and promotes accessibility, with 182 states parties as of 2023 influencing national implementations worldwide.[24][25] The CRPD's approach shifts emphasis toward societal barriers but retains impairment as a core element, requiring states to ensure reasonable accommodations without imposing disproportionate burdens, though empirical critiques note that it may underemphasize inherent biological limitations in favor of environmental determinism, as evidenced by varying ratification impacts on outcomes like employment rates.[26] National legal classifications often align with or adapt these international standards while specifying thresholds for protection. In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, as amended in 2008, defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities (e.g., walking, seeing, learning, or working), a record of such impairment, or being regarded as having one, extending coverage to conditions like epilepsy, HIV, and major depressive disorder when they meet the substantial limitation criterion, with courts interpreting "substantially limits" broadly to favor inclusion but requiring evidence of functional impact beyond mere diagnosis.[27][28] In the United Kingdom, the Equality Act 2010 defines disability as a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, excluding transient conditions under 12 months and certain medical exclusions like hay fever unless compounded, with "substantial" meaning more than minor or trivial, applied in employment, services, and education contexts to mandate reasonable adjustments.[29] These frameworks, while promoting anti-discrimination, vary in stringency—e.g., ADA's "major life activities" list expanded via amendments—reflecting tensions between broad eligibility for rights and verifiable impairment-based criteria to prevent overextension, as seen in litigation rates exceeding 10,000 ADA Title I cases annually in federal courts post-2008.[30]Etiology and Biological Foundations
Genetic and Congenital Causes
Genetic disabilities arise from alterations in DNA, including single-gene mutations, chromosomal abnormalities, and copy number variations, which disrupt normal development and function. These can be inherited in Mendelian patterns (autosomal dominant, recessive, or X-linked) or occur de novo. Chromosomal abnormalities, such as aneuploidies, account for a significant portion; for instance, trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) has an incidence of approximately 1 in 700 live births and leads to intellectual disability, characteristic facial features, and increased risk of congenital heart defects.[31] Fragile X syndrome, the most common inherited cause of intellectual disability, results from expansion of CGG repeats in the FMR1 gene on the X chromosome, affecting about 1 in 4,000 males and 1 in 8,000 females, causing moderate to severe cognitive impairment, behavioral issues, and physical traits like macroorchidism.[32] Duchenne muscular dystrophy, an X-linked recessive disorder due to mutations in the DMD gene, manifests as progressive muscle weakness starting in early childhood, with an incidence of 1 in 3,500-5,000 male births, often leading to wheelchair dependence by age 12 and respiratory failure.[33] Cystic fibrosis, caused by mutations in the CFTR gene, impairs chloride transport and affects multiple systems, with a carrier frequency of 1 in 25 among Caucasians and disease incidence of 1 in 2,500-3,500 births in those populations, resulting in chronic lung infections and pancreatic insufficiency.[33] Intellectual disability, a common genetic disability outcome, affects 1-3% of the global population, with genetic factors implicated in 25-50% of cases, rising with severity; for example, up to 40% of global developmental delay cases trace to genetic etiologies identifiable via testing.[34][35] Advances in genomic sequencing have revealed that de novo mutations contribute substantially, particularly in severe cases without family history.[36] Congenital causes encompass structural or functional anomalies present at birth not solely genetic, often multifactorial involving teratogenic exposures, maternal infections, or nutritional deficiencies during gestation. In the United States, congenital anomalies occur in about 1 in 33 infants annually, contributing to 20% of infant mortality.[37] Globally, they cause over 240,000 neonatal deaths yearly, with 94% in low- and middle-income countries due to limited prenatal care.[38] Non-genetic examples include neural tube defects like spina bifida (incidence ~1 in 2,500 births, preventable by folic acid), linked to folate deficiency, and congenital Zika syndrome from maternal Zika virus infection, causing microcephaly and limb contractures in affected fetuses during the 2015-2016 outbreak.[39] Environmental factors explain 8-12% of cases, while 50-60% remain idiopathic despite investigation.[40] Folic acid fortification has reduced neural tube defects by up to 70% in fortified regions since the 1990s.[38]Acquired and Environmental Causes
Acquired disabilities develop after birth due to injury, illness, or other non-genetic factors, distinguishing them from congenital conditions present at birth.[41] In the United States, arthritis ranks as the leading cause of disability among adults, affecting mobility and daily activities through joint inflammation and degeneration often exacerbated by aging or repetitive strain.[42] Other prevalent acquired causes include musculoskeletal disorders from trauma, such as back pain resulting from accidents or occupational injuries, and neurological impairments from traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), which are a primary source of acquired disability in younger populations via mechanisms like vehicular collisions or falls.[43][44] Chronic diseases contribute significantly to acquired disability, with conditions like stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer leading to impairments in sensory, motor, or cognitive functions.[43] For instance, strokes cause sudden vascular disruptions in the brain, resulting in hemiplegia or aphasia, while degenerative processes in multiple sclerosis erode neural pathways over time. Road traffic accidents account for a substantial portion of acquired physical disabilities, comprising up to 96% in certain demographic studies of trauma patients.[45] Mental health disorders, including depression and anxiety, also emerge as major acquired contributors to years lived with disability globally, often triggered by life events or physiological changes rather than innate traits.[46] Environmental causes of acquired disability involve exposure to external hazards that induce physiological damage, such as toxic substances or unsafe conditions. Occupational and accidental exposures to chemicals like lead or asbestos can precipitate respiratory or neurological impairments, with lead poisoning disrupting cognitive and motor functions through neurotoxic effects.[41] Poor environmental sanitation fosters infections leading to disabilities, as seen in cases of polio or untreated wounds causing paralysis, though vaccination has reduced incidence. Radiation exposure, as in industrial accidents, induces cellular mutations manifesting as cancers or tissue damage. These factors underscore causal pathways where modifiable external agents directly impair bodily systems, independent of genetic predisposition.[47]Evolutionary and Causal Realism Perspectives
From an evolutionary standpoint, disabilities predominantly arise as deleterious outcomes of genetic variation, mutations, and developmental perturbations that compromise organismal fitness, rather than as adaptive traits or social constructs. Natural selection favors traits enhancing survival and reproduction, rendering severe impairments—such as profound intellectual disability or mobility-limiting congenital defects—selectively disadvantageous, as affected individuals historically exhibited reduced reproductive success. Recurrent mutations, however, generate a persistent genetic load of mildly deleterious alleles, ensuring that impairments emerge across populations despite selective pressures; for instance, estimates indicate that humans carry hundreds of such variants, contributing to conditions like cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy when homozygous.[48][49] Pleiotropy further complicates this, where genes underlying disabilities may confer advantages in heterozygous states, as seen in alleles linked to intellectual disability that parallel those accelerating human brain evolution, such as expansions in Rho GTPase pathways influencing neuronal migration.[50][51] Causal mechanisms in disability etiology prioritize biological realities over interpretive overlays, positing that impairments stem from failures in selected functions—defined as mechanisms evolved to produce specific effects under ancestral conditions, like neural circuits for cognition or skeletal structures for locomotion. When these fail due to genetic lesions or environmental insults during critical developmental windows, the resulting dysfunction directly precipitates disability, independent of societal responses; for example, Down syndrome's trisomy 21 disrupts dosage-sensitive genes, yielding consistent phenotypic deficits in cognition and physiology, irrespective of cultural accommodations.[52] This realist causal framework rejects attributions of disability solely to barriers, as empirical interventions targeting root impairments—such as gene therapies for spinal muscular atrophy—yield measurable functional gains, underscoring biology's primacy.[48] Modern extensions of selection via medical and social supports have elevated the incidence of heritable disabilities, with data showing increased survival and reproduction among carriers, potentially amplifying genetic load over generations.[53] Evolutionary theory thus frames disability not as an evolutionary "design flaw" but as an inevitable byproduct of variation fueling adaptation, where most impairments represent mismatches to novel environments rather than relics of past utility. Ancient disease systems, conserved from pre-human lineages, interact with human-specific variants to produce contemporary disabilities, as evidenced by genomic analyses revealing that over 1,700 genes associate with intellectual disability alone, many with deep evolutionary roots yet recent human perturbations.[51][54] Causal realism reinforces this by demanding identification of stratified mechanisms—genetic, physiological, ecological—over monocausal narratives, enabling precise etiologic mapping; for instance, fetal alcohol spectrum disorders exemplify how teratogenic exposures exploit developmental vulnerabilities evolved for plasticity, yielding irreversible neural impairments.[55] Such perspectives counter ideologically driven denials of impairment's role, aligning with verifiable interventions that restore function through biological targeting rather than redefinition.[56]Theoretical Models
Medical Model
The medical model of disability frames disability as a biomedical impairment inherent to the individual, arising from deviations in physiological, neurological, or psychological functions due to pathology, injury, genetic anomalies, or disease.[57] This perspective locates the primary cause within the person's body or mind, independent of external factors, and prioritizes empirical diagnosis through clinical evaluation to identify treatable deficits.[5] Interventions focus on restoration, mitigation, or compensation via medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, or rehabilitative means, aiming to approximate normative function and reduce functional limitations.[17] For instance, orthopedic surgeries for congenital limb deformities or pharmacological management of epilepsy exemplify this approach, where targeted biomedical corrections address causal physiological disruptions.[58] Emerging alongside the professionalization of medicine in the 19th century and solidifying by the early 20th century, the model integrated disability into institutional healthcare, education, and policy frameworks, emphasizing expert-led assessments over lay interpretations.[59] Physicians, therapists, and researchers quantified impairments using standardized tools, such as functional capacity scales or imaging diagnostics, to guide evidence-based protocols.[16] This era saw widespread adoption in asylums, hospitals, and rehabilitation centers, where the imperative to "fix" the individual aligned with advancing scientific causality in etiology, from infectious agents to hereditary mechanisms.[17] Empirical outcomes underscore the model's utility for biologically rooted impairments; vaccination campaigns eradicated smallpox-induced disabilities by 1980, while antibiotic therapies post-1940s dramatically curtailed infection-related paralysis and sensory losses.[60] Rehabilitation interventions, including physical therapy for post-stroke hemiparesis, have demonstrated measurable gains in mobility, with randomized trials showing up to 18% reductions in major disability risks through structured exercise regimens.[61] Such successes reflect the model's grounding in verifiable causal pathways, where addressing the impairment directly yields quantifiable functional improvements, as tracked via metrics like the WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework.[16]Social Model and Its Empirical Critiques
The social model of disability emerged in the United Kingdom during the 1970s amid the disability rights movement, with foundational ideas articulated in the 1976 statement by the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS), which distinguished impairment—defined as lacking part or all of a limb, or having a defective limb, organism, or mechanism of the senses—as a biological phenomenon from disability, described as the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in society on equal terms with others due to physical and social barriers.[62] Sociologist Mike Oliver formalized the term "social model" in 1983, emphasizing that disability arises primarily from attitudinal, environmental, and institutional obstacles rather than impairments themselves, thereby shifting responsibility from individuals to society for removal of such barriers.[63] This framework influenced policy, such as the UK's 1995 Disability Discrimination Act, by advocating for accessibility reforms over medical fixes.[64] Proponents argue the model empowers disabled individuals by framing exclusion as modifiable through social change, rejecting the "personal tragedy" narrative of the medical model.[21] However, empirical critiques, grounded in observations of persistent functional deficits, challenge its causal claims. For example, conditions like blindness impose inherent restrictions on tasks requiring visual input—such as reading unaided or navigating complex environments—even in theoretically barrier-free settings, as accommodations like Braille or guide dogs mitigate but do not eliminate core limitations.[65] Studies of chronic conditions reveal that biological impairments, including pain and fatigue, contribute directly to reduced participation, independent of societal attitudes; a 2013 analysis noted that the model's separation of impairment from disability creates a "half-person" perspective, undervaluing how bodily realities shape lived experiences.[66] Further critiques highlight the model's origins in activism among those with physical impairments, rendering it less applicable to intellectual, sensory, or progressive conditions where social adjustments alone cannot restore equivalent functioning.[67] Tom Shakespeare, in a 2002 assessment, identified three core flaws: overemphasis on social causation at the expense of impairment's intrinsic burdens, an untenable impairment-disability dualism akin to outdated sex-gender binaries, and unwarranted dismissal of medical interventions that address biological deficits.[68] Empirical evidence from disability outcomes supports this; for instance, employment gaps for those with severe impairments persist post-accommodation mandates, attributable to productivity differences rooted in functional capacity rather than discrimination alone, as evidenced in longitudinal data from integrated environments.[69] Critics like Jenny Morris have documented how the model marginalizes personal narratives of impairment-related suffering, such as in chronic illness, where social barriers explain only a fraction of disadvantage.[65] These limitations have prompted shifts toward integrated frameworks, as the social model's dominance in disability studies—often within institutionally left-leaning academic circles—has been accused of prioritizing ideological narratives over multifaceted causal evidence, including biological determinism in outcomes.[20] While effective for advocating ramps or policy reforms, it underperforms in explaining why equivalent impairments yield unequal results across contexts, underscoring the need for causal realism that weighs impairments' direct effects.[67]Biopsychosocial and Integrated Approaches
The biopsychosocial model of disability, first articulated by George Engel in 1977 as a framework for general medicine, posits that health conditions and their consequences arise from dynamic interactions among biological, psychological, and social factors rather than isolated biomedical pathology.[70] In disability contexts, this approach views impairments as originating from physiological disruptions—such as neural damage or musculoskeletal deficits—but recognizes that functional limitations emerge through interplay with personal psychological attributes (e.g., motivation, coping strategies) and environmental social elements (e.g., physical accessibility, stigma).[16] Unlike the medical model's focus on curing underlying biology or the social model's attribution of disability primarily to societal barriers, the biopsychosocial perspective emphasizes multifactorial causality, where biological substrates remain the necessary foundation for impairment, modulated by psychological resilience and social supports.[71] The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), endorsed by all 191 member states in 2001, operationalizes this model as an integrated classification system for measuring disability at individual and population levels.[14] The ICF frames disability not as an inherent trait but as outcomes of a health condition interacting with body functions and structures (biological domain), activities and participation (functional domain), and contextual factors including environmental barriers/facilitators and personal attributes like age or temperament (psychosocial domains).[15] This structure shifts from disease-centric classification to a holistic assessment, enabling quantification of how, for instance, a spinal cord injury (biological) limits mobility (activity) unless mitigated by adaptive prosthetics (environmental) and therapeutic adherence (psychological).[72] Empirical applications in rehabilitation demonstrate improved predictive validity; studies integrating ICF components have shown correlations between biopsychosocial profiling and enhanced recovery metrics, such as reduced depression in chronic pain patients via combined pharmacological, cognitive-behavioral, and social interventions.[73] Integrated approaches extending the biopsychosocial model prioritize evidence-based interventions targeting all domains, yielding outcomes superior to unidimensional strategies in longitudinal data. For example, multidisciplinary programs for spinal cord injury patients incorporating biological rehabilitation, psychological counseling, and social reintegration have reported 20-30% higher rates of independent living compared to medical-only care, as measured by participation scales in ICF-aligned trials.[74] In mental health-related disabilities, such as schizophrenia, biopsychosocial protocols combining antipsychotics (biological), psychoeducation (psychological), and vocational training (social) correlate with 15-25% reductions in relapse over five years, per meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.[75] These findings underscore causal realism: biological impairments drive primary dysfunction, with psychosocial elements acting as amplifiers or mitigators, supported by neuroimaging evidence linking untreated physiological deficits to persistent activity restrictions regardless of social context.[76] Critiques from causal-realist perspectives highlight limitations, including the model's occasional vagueness in weighting factors, which can obscure biological primacy and enable policy misuse, such as in welfare assessments where psychosocial attributions justify denying benefits despite verifiable impairments.[77] For instance, UK Work Capability Assessments grounded in biopsychosocial principles have faced empirical scrutiny for underemphasizing objective biomarkers, leading to higher denial rates (up to 40% appeals overturned) without corresponding health improvements.[78] Nonetheless, when rigorously applied with empirical prioritization of biological causality—via tools like ICF qualifiers for severity—the model advances truth-seeking by integrating verifiable data across domains, avoiding the social model's empirical overreach or the medical model's neglect of modifiable contexts.[79]Historical Development
Ancient and Pre-Modern Conceptions
In ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, disabilities were frequently interpreted through supernatural lenses, such as divine punishment, curses, or omens from gods, influencing treatments that involved exorcisms, amulets, or appeals to deities rather than empirical interventions.[80] Archaeological evidence from Egypt, spanning the Predynastic to Roman periods, depicts individuals with physical impairments, including dwarfs who held roles in courts and households, suggesting some societal integration and accommodation despite predominant views tying impairments to moral or cosmic disequilibrium.[81] Ancient Greek conceptions evolved from mythological attributions—where deformities signaled divine disfavor—to proto-scientific explanations pioneered by Hippocrates (c. 460–370 BCE), who rejected supernatural causes for conditions like epilepsy, attributing them instead to imbalances in bodily humors such as phlegm or bile, and classified mental disorders including mania, melancholy, and phrenitis as physiological.[82] [83] Aristotle (384–322 BCE), while acknowledging natural variations in human form, deemed severe physical or intellectual impairments incompatible with full citizenship or reproduction, influencing eugenic ideas later echoed by Plato, though empirical evidence for systematic infanticide targeting disabled newborns in Greece remains sparse and contested, with exposure practices more commonly linked to economic pressures than inherent unfitness.[84] [85] Roman attitudes mirrored Greek ones, treating children with evident disabilities—blindness, deafness, or cognitive impairments—as objects of public scorn, with textual accounts indicating exposure or persecution rather than systematic care, though elite households occasionally retained impaired slaves for utility.[82] In Sparta, Plutarch's later accounts describe elder inspections of newborns for viability, potentially leading to exposure of those deemed deformed to preserve military prowess, but contemporary archaeological and textual evidence does not confirm widespread institutional infanticide specifically for disability, challenging romanticized narratives of eugenic rigor.[86] [85] Medieval European conceptions under Christianity framed disabilities ambivalently: as potential divine chastisement for sin, a salvific trial purging earthly purgatory, or a mark of spiritual proximity to God, prompting charitable responses like monastic alms and leprosaria for segregation and care from the 5th to 15th centuries CE.[87] Physical impairments were often linked causally to moral failings in theological texts, yet empirical church practices emphasized compassion, with figures like the handicapped beggars in Pieter Bruegel the Elder's 1568 painting The Beggars illustrating the era's visible reliance on pity amid social exclusion.[88] In Islamic traditions from the 7th century onward, Quranic injunctions promoted care for the afflicted as an act of piety, viewing impairments as tests of faith rather than inherent curses, though pre-modern medical texts integrated Galenic humors with spiritual etiologies.[89] Across these periods, causal attributions shifted unevenly from theistic determinism toward naturalistic models, but societal responses prioritized exclusion or pity over integration, reflecting resource constraints and cultural priors over modern biomedical frameworks.[90]Industrial Era to Eugenics
The Industrial Revolution, spanning roughly from the late 18th to mid-19th century in Britain and spreading to other Western nations, dramatically increased the incidence of work-related injuries and chronic impairments due to mechanized labor in factories, mines, and mills. Coal mining, a cornerstone of industrialization, exemplified this trend, with high rates of accidents causing limb loss, respiratory diseases, and spinal deformities among workers; historical records indicate that collieries employed individuals with pre-existing disabilities in lighter roles, such as hauliers or trappers, challenging narratives of total exclusion but underscoring hazardous conditions that generated new cohorts of disabled laborers. Urbanization exacerbated visibility and marginalization, as agrarian societies previously integrated impaired individuals into family-based economies shifted toward wage labor demanding physical efficiency, leading to pauperization and reliance on poor laws. In Britain, the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 confined many disabled paupers to workhouses, where conditions often worsened impairments through inadequate care and forced labor.[91][92][93] Victorian-era responses (1837–1901) blended charity, medicalization, and early institutionalization, with philanthropic societies establishing specialized asylums and schools for the blind, deaf, and "idiots" starting in the 1820s; by mid-century, over 100 such facilities operated in Britain, reflecting a view of disability as a curable or segregable defect amenable to moral and therapeutic intervention. Self-help organizations emerged among disabled individuals, such as the National League of the Blind founded in 1893, advocating for better employment amid exclusion from industrial jobs, where "factory cripples" became a term for pity-evoking victims of machinery. Prosthetics and rehabilitation advanced modestly, driven by surgeons like James Syme, who pioneered affordable limb fittings in the 1840s, yet societal attitudes emphasized individual pathology over environmental causes, fostering stigma through freak shows and medical exhibitions that commodified impairments for public consumption.[94][95][96] By the late 19th century, Darwinian evolutionary theory intersected with emerging genetics, catalyzing the eugenics movement, formally articulated by Francis Galton in 1883 as a science to improve human heredity by discouraging reproduction among the "unfit," explicitly including those with physical, intellectual, and mental disabilities deemed heritable burdens. Proponents, including statisticians like Karl Pearson and biologists such as Charles Davenport, argued that impairments like feeblemindedness—estimated to affect 1-2% of populations in early surveys—threatened societal progress, leading to policies of segregation and sterilization; in the United States, 30 states enacted compulsory sterilization laws by the 1930s, resulting in over 60,000 procedures, upheld by the Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell (1927), which sanctioned the operation on Carrie Buck, classified as mentally deficient. European variants, milder in Britain but influential in Scandinavia and Nazi Germany, promoted institutional confinement, with U.S. facilities for the "feeble-minded" expanding from about 10 in 1900 to 80 by 1923, prioritizing custodial isolation over education. These measures rested on flawed IQ testing, like the Binet-Simon scale adapted in 1916, which conflated socioeconomic disadvantage with innate inferiority, ignoring environmental factors and later discredited as pseudoscientific.[97][98][99]Post-WWII Shifts and Modern Reforms
Following World War II, the return of over 600,000 disabled American veterans spurred federal investments in rehabilitation and vocational training programs, marking a shift from isolation to societal reintegration.[100] The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, known as the GI Bill, extended benefits including education and employment support to disabled veterans, influencing broader disability policies.[101] Amendments to the Social Security Act in 1950 introduced disability frozen benefits, evolving into Disability Insurance in 1956, providing cash assistance to workers unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to impairments.[102] Deinstitutionalization gained momentum in the 1950s, accelerated by the 1955 introduction of antipsychotic medication chlorpromazine (Thorazine), which reduced the need for long-term institutional care for those with severe mental illnesses.[103] By the 1960s, exposés of institutional abuses, such as the 1965 Willowbrook State School report revealing neglect and mistreatment of intellectually disabled residents, fueled advocacy for community-based alternatives.[104] The movement culminated in policies like the 1963 Community Mental Health Act, promoting outpatient centers over asylums, though empirical studies show mixed outcomes: improved quality of life and adaptive skills for many with developmental disabilities post-deinstitutionalization, but increased homelessness and incarceration rates among those with severe mental impairments lacking adequate community support, termed "transinstitutionalization."[105][106][107] Legislative reforms in the 1970s embedded anti-discrimination principles, with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting exclusion from federally funded programs based on disability, including Section 504 mandating accessibility.[108] The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 ensured free appropriate public education in least restrictive environments, later reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.[109] The independent living movement, exemplified by 1977 sit-ins enforcing Section 504 regulations, emphasized self-determination over paternalism.[110] The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 represented a pinnacle of domestic reform, extending civil rights protections to employment, public services, transportation, and telecommunications, affecting an estimated 43 million Americans with disabilities at the time.[111] Internationally, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted in 2006 and ratified by 182 countries by 2023, codified rights to inclusion and non-discrimination, influencing global policy shifts toward participation over segregation.[110] Empirical evaluations indicate ADA compliance increased workplace accommodations and public access, yet critiques highlight persistent employment gaps—only 21% of disabled adults employed full-time in 2019 versus 65% non-disabled—and litigation burdens on businesses without proportional productivity gains in some sectors.[112] Modern reforms face scrutiny for over-relying on social barriers explanations, empirical data showing that impairment severity causally limits integration more than discrimination alone in severe cases.[113]Terminology and Linguistic Debates
Historical Terms and Stigmatization
Throughout history, terms denoting disabilities originated as descriptive or clinical labels but frequently devolved into derogatory slurs, embedding stigma by associating physical or intellectual differences with moral failing, inferiority, or worthlessness. In ancient societies, conditions like blindness or lameness were often attributed to divine curses or punishment, fostering fear and exclusion; for instance, in biblical texts circa 1000 BCE, leprosy was linked to sin, leading to ritual isolation of affected individuals.[114] Similarly, Greek and Roman literature from the 5th century BCE employed terms like "kōlos" for crippled, which carried connotations of incompleteness and social marginalization, as evidenced in depictions of disabled figures as beggars or omens.[115] By the 19th and early 20th centuries, psychiatric classifications formalized intellectual disabilities using terms derived from etymological roots but scaled by intelligence quotients from the Binet-Simon test introduced in 1905. "Idiot," from Greek "idiōtēs" meaning layperson or private individual, denoted severe impairment (IQ below 25) for those unable to self-care; "imbecile," from Latin "imbecillus" implying weak or unsupported, classified moderate impairment (IQ 25-50); and "moron," coined by psychologist Henry H. Goddard in 1910 from Greek "mōros" for foolish, targeted mild cases (IQ 51-70).[116] [117] [118] These terms, intended for diagnostic precision, rapidly permeated popular vernacular as insults by the 1920s, equating intellectual variance with stupidity and justifying institutionalization or eugenic policies that sterilized over 60,000 individuals in the U.S. by 1940 under premises of hereditary defect.[116] [98] Physical disability terms like "cripple" (from Old English "crypel," meaning to creep) and "lame" (from Proto-Indo-European roots for bending) similarly shifted from neutral descriptors of mobility limitations to symbols of helplessness and dependency, as seen in 16th-century European art portraying the disabled as pitiable mendicants. This linguistic degradation reinforced causal perceptions of disability as personal tragedy or societal burden, evident in pre-20th-century laws denying suffrage or property rights to the "feeble-minded," thereby entrenching exclusionary practices until mid-century reforms.[115] The persistence of such terms in slang perpetuated stigma, with empirical studies from the 1970s documenting their role in heightening discrimination against intellectually disabled individuals in employment and education.[118]People-First vs. Identity-First Language
People-first language (PFL) emphasizes the individual before the disability, as in "person with autism," originating from the "People First" movement in the 1980s, which sought to humanize individuals by separating their inherent worth from perceived deficits associated with disabilities.[119] [120] This approach gained traction through professional organizations like the American Psychological Association and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, which promoted it in style guides to mitigate stigma by implying disabilities are extrinsic traits rather than defining characteristics.[121] In contrast, identity-first language (IFL), such as "autistic person," views disability as an integral component of personal identity, a perspective advanced by self-advocates in the disability rights movement who argue that PFL pathologizes traits by suggesting they can or should be detached from the self.[122] Proponents of IFL contend it fosters pride and normalizes variation, rejecting the implication in PFL that disability is inherently burdensome or separable without loss.[123] Surveys of affected communities reveal strong preferences for IFL among many groups, particularly autistic adults, with 88.6% favoring it in a 2020 study of over 800 self-advocates, and broader disabled populations showing 49% preference for IFL versus 33% for PFL in a 2022 analysis.[124] [125] Preferences correlate with disability identity strength, where those embracing their condition as core select IFL more often, while parents or professionals may lean toward PFL.[126] Variations exist by condition; for instance, intellectual disability communities sometimes retain PFL affinity, but autism advocates consistently reject it as distancing.[127] Empirical studies on stigma reduction are sparse and inconclusive, with some evidence indicating PFL may inadvertently heighten stigma by drawing unnatural attention to disabilities through awkward phrasing, particularly for children, rather than normalizing them.[121] No robust causal data demonstrates PFL's superiority in altering attitudes; critiques from disability rights perspectives highlight its paternalistic origins in professional norms, potentially overriding self-identification and reinforcing medicalized views over lived experience.[129] Thus, language choice should prioritize individual or community preferences to avoid imposing external assumptions about identity.[130]Critiques of Euphemistic and Politicized Usage
The euphemism treadmill, a term coined by cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker in 1994, illustrates how successive polite substitutes for disability-related terms—such as progressing from "cripple" to "handicapped," "disabled," and then to "physically challenged" or "differently abled"—inevitably acquire the same stigmatized connotations as their predecessors, rendering the cycle unproductive for reducing prejudice or clarifying realities.[131] This linguistic evolution persists because it addresses emotional discomfort rather than the underlying objective impairments, leading to terminological churn without empirical progress in societal attitudes or policy effectiveness.[132] In disability discourse, critics contend this treadmill obscures causal factors like neurological or physiological deficits, prioritizing vague positivity over precise descriptions needed for medical and economic analysis.[133] Specific euphemisms like "special needs" have drawn scrutiny for ineffectiveness, as they fail to convey the concrete functional limitations—such as cognitive delays or mobility restrictions—that demand targeted interventions, instead fostering a sanitized view that underprepares stakeholders for real-world accommodations.[134] Similarly, "differently abled" is criticized for implying equivalence between abilities and disabilities, denying the hierarchical nature of human capabilities where certain deficits impose inherent disadvantages regardless of social adjustments.[135] Disability advocates, including those within affected communities, argue these terms infantilize individuals by evading direct acknowledgment of impairments, potentially perpetuating dependency through avoidance of stigma-rooted truths about biological variance.[136] Politicized usages, particularly in movements like neurodiversity, reframing conditions such as autism spectrum disorder as variants of "neurodivergence" rather than pathologies, face critiques for ideological overreach that marginalizes severe manifestations.[137] Originating largely from high-functioning proponents, this paradigm politicizes terminology to reject medical models emphasizing etiology and treatment, thereby downplaying data on lifelong dependencies and quality-of-life reductions in profound cases—evidenced by studies showing 30-50% of autistic individuals with intellectual disability requiring full-time care.[138] Such language, by equating disability with diversity sans hierarchy, is seen as detached from causal realism, where genetic and environmental factors produce measurable deficits, not mere differences, complicating resource allocation and research into amelioration.[139] These critiques extend to broader policy implications, where euphemistic or politicized terms inflate prevalence estimates by blurring clinical thresholds—e.g., expanding "disability" to encompass subjective self-identifications—and incentivize fraud in benefit systems, as observed in U.S. Social Security Disability Insurance audits revealing over 10% improper payments tied to vague diagnostic criteria.[140] Academic sources advancing these linguistic shifts often reflect institutional biases favoring social constructivism over biopsychosocial evidence, yet empirical reviews underscore that direct terminology correlates with better outcomes in intervention adherence and public awareness of costs.[141]Epidemiology and Demographics
Global Prevalence Data
Approximately 1.3 billion people worldwide, representing 16% of the global population, experience significant disability, defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as substantial limitations in functioning stemming from interactions between health conditions and environmental factors.[1] This estimate, drawn from WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework, reflects data harmonized across surveys and censuses up to 2023 and accounts for both physical and mental impairments that hinder daily activities.[1] The United Nations' Disability and Development Report 2024 corroborates this figure, emphasizing that persons with disabilities comprise one in six individuals globally, with prevalence elevated among women (19.2% versus 11.1% for men) due to factors like longer life expectancy and higher rates of osteoporosis and arthritis.[142][143] Prevalence varies markedly by income level and region, with over 80% of affected individuals residing in low- and middle-income countries, where inadequate healthcare, nutrition deficits, and environmental hazards exacerbate impairments.[144] In high-income regions like Europe and Central Asia, overall rates hover around 8-10%, compared to 13-14% in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, per meta-analyses of population-based studies.[145] For children under 15, global estimates indicate 5-6% prevalence, or roughly 240 million, with intellectual and developmental disabilities prominent in lower-income settings due to preventable causes like birth complications and infections.[1][145] These figures are rising, projected to reach 17% by 2030, driven by demographic aging—wherein disability rates exceed 40% among those over 65—and the growing burden of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular conditions.[1][146] Methodological challenges persist, as self-reported data often underestimates severity in resource-poor areas, while standardized tools like the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule yield more consistent but context-dependent results; cross-validation with administrative health records supports the 16% benchmark as a conservative global average.[1][146]National and Regional Statistics
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 28.7% of adults—or over 70 million individuals—had some type of disability based on 2023 data analyzed in 2024, with prevalence rising to 43.9% among those aged 65 and older.[147] [148] Mobility, cognition, and independent living limitations were among the most common categories, reflecting age-related and chronic health factors.[149] Across the European Union, Eurostat data for 2024 indicated that 24% of the population aged 16 and over—approximately 107 million people—reported some form of disability, with national variations from 12.7% in Bulgaria to 41.2% in Latvia.[150] [151] These figures, derived from self-reported limitations in activities like walking or seeing, highlight disparities influenced by aging populations and healthcare access differences across member states.[152] The following table summarizes disability prevalence rates from official national surveys in select developed countries, using comparable metrics of self-reported functional limitations:| Country | Prevalence Rate | Population Affected | Year | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 28.7% (adults) | >70 million | 2023 | CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; higher in rural areas and among lower-income groups.[147] [148] |
| European Union | 24% (aged 16+) | 107 million | 2024 | Eurostat EU-SILC survey; includes moderate to severe limitations.[150] [151] |
| United Kingdom | 24% (all ages) | ~16 million | 2023 | Office for National Statistics; stable from prior year, with 42% mobility impairment among working-age adults.[153] [154] |
| Canada | 27% (aged 15+) | 8 million | 2022 | Statistics Canada; up 4.7% from 2017, driven by pain-related and mental health disabilities.[155] [156] |
| Australia | 21.4% (all ages) | 5.5 million | 2022 | Australian Bureau of Statistics; increase from 17.7% in 2018, with females at 6.1% requiring core activity assistance.[157] [158] |
Trends, Including Post-Pandemic Shifts
Global disability prevalence has risen steadily, driven primarily by population aging and the increasing incidence of chronic non-communicable diseases, which account for approximately 66.5% of all deaths worldwide. According to World Health Organization estimates, about 1.3 billion people—or 16% of the global population—experienced significant disability as of 2023, with this figure projected to grow due to longer life expectancies amid unmanaged health conditions. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) globally increased from 2.63 billion in 2010 to 2.88 billion in 2021, reflecting heightened burdens from conditions like musculoskeletal disorders, mental health issues, and neurological impairments.[162][1][7] The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated these trends, particularly through long COVID, which has contributed to new-onset disabilities, especially in cognitive functioning, mobility, and fatigue-related limitations. In the United States, the number of disabled adults surged by approximately 1.7 million since early 2020, with nearly 1 million newly disabled workers, largely attributable to persistent post-infection symptoms. A 2025 study found that adults with ongoing long COVID symptoms reported substantially higher increases in disability measures—such as difficulties with self-care, mobility, and cognition—compared to those without, with 65% of long COVID cases at 12 weeks post-infection exhibiting at least one disability. Globally, long COVID imposed a disproportionate burden on working-age adults, with U.S. residents aged 20–54 experiencing about 179 years lived with disability per 100,000 people in 2021 due to these symptoms.[163][164][165] Pre-pandemic declines in U.S. disability-related labor force non-participation stalled sharply after 2020, coinciding with elevated reports of cognitive impairments and reduced well-being among long COVID sufferers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from 2024 indicate over 70 million U.S. adults reported disabilities, with long COVID symptoms present in 11% of cases, and workers affected showing higher rates of functional limitations than pre-pandemic baselines. While some analyses note shifts in self-reporting patterns—potentially inflating figures due to heightened awareness—empirical evidence from longitudinal surveys confirms genuine rises in disabling conditions, particularly among those with preexisting vulnerabilities who faced double the long COVID prevalence (40.6%) compared to nondisabled individuals. These shifts have reversed prior downward trajectories in disability prevalence among younger adults, underscoring causal links to viral persistence rather than solely diagnostic expansions.[166][148][167]Economic Dimensions
Individual and Familial Costs
Individuals with disabilities incur substantial extra living costs compared to those without, estimated at 28% higher household income requirements, or approximately $17,690 annually in the United States, to achieve equivalent standards of living; these encompass direct expenses like adaptive equipment and transportation, alongside indirect costs such as home modifications.[168] Earnings for households affected by disability face penalties ranging from 15% to 70% of potential income, varying by disability severity and type, which compounds financial strain through reduced workforce participation.[169] Families of children with disabilities bear elevated out-of-pocket health care expenditures, with median annual costs exceeding $8,000 in cases involving medical complexities, primarily for therapies, equipment, and specialized care not fully covered by insurance.[170] Globally, the economic burden of childhood disability spans $450 to $69,500 per year per family, reflecting direct medical and indirect opportunity costs like parental employment disruptions.[171] These families report disproportionately higher financial hardships tied to health care, including unmet needs and debt accumulation, relative to households without disabled children.[172] Caregiving for disabled relatives imposes multifaceted burdens on families, including lost wages from reduced or foregone employment—often necessitating one parent's full-time role—and emotional tolls manifesting as chronic stress, anxiety, and physical health decline over prolonged periods.[173][174] For families supporting disabled adults, additional costs can equate to 3 to 6 times income for those with lower support needs, escalating to 2 to 10 times for higher dependency, driven by unmet assistive needs and systemic gaps in public support.[175] Such dynamics frequently perpetuate cycles of poverty, as caregivers sacrifice career advancement and personal well-being to meet daily demands.Societal Productivity Losses
Disabilities contribute to societal productivity losses primarily through reduced labor force participation, higher unemployment rates, and diminished output among those employed, as impairments limit physical, cognitive, or sensory capacities essential for work. Globally, the exclusion of working-age individuals with disabilities from full economic participation is estimated to cost economies 3-7% of annual GDP, based on analyses accounting for foregone earnings, reduced workforce contributions, and lower productivity levels among employed disabled workers.[176][177] These figures derive from country-specific models in the International Labour Organization's 2009 study, which calculated losses across components such as the output gap from non-employment (averaging 1.5-4% GDP) and productivity penalties for those in suboptimal roles due to unaccommodated limitations.[176] In the United States, empirical data underscore these dynamics: in 2024, the employment-population ratio for working-age people with disabilities stood at 22.7%, compared to 65.5% for those without, while unemployment among the disabled labor force was 7.5% versus 3.8% for non-disabled workers.[178][179] This disparity translates to substantial aggregate losses, as the disabled population represents about 13% of working-age adults, with many severe cases inherently curtailing work capacity—such as mobility impairments preventing manual labor or cognitive disabilities hindering complex tasks—independent of external barriers. Labor force participation rates further highlight the gap, at approximately 21% for disabled individuals versus 67% for others, amplifying foregone productivity in a economy where human capital drives growth.[180] Internationally, patterns persist: the International Labour Organization reports that among 470 million working-age people with disabilities worldwide, employment rates lag significantly, with disabled workers earning 10-20% less on average due to partial capacity constraints and occupational mismatches.[181][182] In Europe, only 40% of disabled individuals of working age are employed compared to 64% without disabilities, contributing to broader GDP drags estimated at similar 3-7% scales when scaled globally.[182] These losses compound through secondary effects, including diverted resources to informal caregiving—often unremunerated family labor—and reduced innovation from untapped talent pools, though causal attribution favors inherent disability effects over purely discriminatory exclusion, as evidenced by persistent gaps even in high-inclusion policy environments.[176] Recent analyses, such as those from 2024, reaffirm that without addressing core capacity limitations via targeted interventions, these productivity shortfalls endure as structural economic burdens.[183]Public Expenditure and Fraud Incentives
Public spending on disability-related benefits constitutes a significant portion of social welfare budgets in developed nations, often averaging around 1.6% of GDP for working-age incapacity benefits across OECD countries as of 2019 data.[184] In the United States, federal expenditures on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) reached $63.0 billion in calendar year 2024, while Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments, funded through payroll taxes at 0.9% each from employers and employees up to the $168,600 cap, supported millions with average monthly benefits of $1,537.[185][186] In the United Kingdom, total health-related benefits expenditure rose to £65 billion in 2023-24 from £52 billion in 2019-20, with Personal Independence Payment (PIP) alone costing £21.6 billion in the financial year ending April 2024, driven by expanded claims including mental health conditions.[187][188] These figures reflect post-pandemic surges, where looser eligibility criteria and economic disruptions increased caseloads, straining fiscal resources without corresponding productivity gains. Fraud detection in these systems yields low official rates, but structural incentives undermine program integrity. In the UK, the Department for Work and Pensions reported a 0% fraud rate for PIP in the financial year ending 2024, with overall benefit fraud at 2.2%, though critics argue under-detection persists due to reliance on self-reported claims and limited verification.[189] In the US, the Social Security Administration has identified fraud risks in SSDI but lacks comprehensive assessments, with entitlement fraud convictions rising 242% since fiscal year 2020 amid broader welfare expansions.[190][191] Official statistics from government agencies, while empirically derived, may systematically understate fraud owing to resource constraints in investigations and political sensitivities around welfare scrutiny, as evidenced by GAO reports on inadequate antifraud measures.[190] Generous benefit levels relative to low-wage employment create moral hazard, incentivizing fraudulent or exaggerated claims to avoid work disincentives. In the US, SSDI replacement rates often exceed earnings from entry-level jobs, particularly for mental impairments with subjective assessments, facilitating awards to able-bodied individuals via lax evidentiary standards.[192] Benefit cliffs—sudden loss of aid upon earning thresholds—further encourage dishonesty, as recipients forgo legitimate income to preserve eligibility, diverting funds from genuine needs and eroding public trust.[193] Post-pandemic expansions, such as broader mental health inclusions without rigorous medical corroboration, amplify these risks, as causal links between conditions and incapacity weaken under first-principles scrutiny of verifiable impairment. Reforms like enhanced fraud units and stricter work-capacity tests could mitigate this, though implementation lags due to institutional inertia.[194]Policy Frameworks
International Conventions and Standards
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13 December 2006, serves as the primary international human rights treaty addressing disability.[25] It opened for signature on 30 March 2007 and entered into force on 3 May 2008 after ratification by the twentieth state party.[195] The CRPD's purpose is to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by persons with disabilities, emphasizing principles such as respect for inherent dignity, non-discrimination, full and effective participation, equality of opportunity, accessibility, equality between men and women, respect for the capacities of children with disabilities, and respect for the evolving capacities of children to take responsibility on their own behalf.[25] It requires states parties to adopt legislative, administrative, and other measures to eliminate discrimination and promote inclusion, including in areas like education, health, employment, and political participation, while recognizing that disability results from the interaction between impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers.[24] As of 2024, the CRPD has been ratified by 186 states and the European Union, making it one of the most widely ratified UN human rights conventions, though implementation varies due to differences in national capacities and commitments.[195] An optional protocol allows individuals to submit complaints to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with 104 ratifications as of recent reports.[195] The convention builds on prior UN instruments but shifts focus from welfare-based approaches to rights-based ones, mandating reasonable accommodations and universal design to mitigate barriers.[196] Complementing the CRPD, the International Labour Organization's Convention No. 159 on Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons), adopted in 1983, promotes equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in vocational training and employment.[197] Ratified by over 90 countries, it defines vocational rehabilitation as enabling disabled persons to secure, retain, and advance in suitable employment, requiring national policies for guidance, training, placement, and employment promotion without discrimination.[197] The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), endorsed by all 194 WHO member states in 2001, provides a standardized framework for describing health and disability at individual and population levels.[14] Unlike medical models focusing solely on impairments, the ICF integrates environmental and personal factors, classifying disability as an outcome of interactions between health conditions, body functions, activities, and contextual barriers, facilitating cross-national data comparability and policy evaluation.[14]National Welfare and Insurance Systems
National welfare and insurance systems for disability typically blend contributory social insurance, funded by payroll taxes tied to prior employment, with means-tested assistance for those lacking sufficient work history or resources.[198] Contributory models, prevalent in countries like the United States and Germany, require claimants to demonstrate a qualifying period of contributions and a medically verified impairment preventing substantial work, aiming to replace lost earnings while incentivizing rehabilitation where feasible.[199] Means-tested programs, such as supplemental aid in the US or non-contributory elements in the UK, target low-income individuals but often face critiques for creating marginal effective tax rates exceeding 100% on earnings, discouraging return to work due to benefit cliffs.[200] Empirical analyses indicate these structures can perpetuate dependency, with disability rolls expanding during economic downturns as alternative employment options diminish, independent of underlying health trends.[201] In the United States, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) provides benefits to workers with sufficient earnings credits—requiring 40 quarters of coverage, or 20 in the last 10 years for younger claimants—who suffer impairments expected to last at least 12 months or result in death, rendering them unable to perform substantial gainful activity (SGA), defined as monthly earnings above $1,730 in 2025.[202] Average SSDI payments hover around $1,500 monthly, with a maximum of $4,018 in 2025 adjusted for cost-of-living (2.5% COLA), calculated via average indexed monthly earnings formula.[203] Complementing SSDI, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) offers up to $967 monthly for individuals (or $1,450 for couples) aged 65+, blind, or disabled with resources below $2,000 ($3,000 for couples), excluding work history but applying strict income deeming rules that reduce payments dollar-for-dollar above exclusions.[204][205] Approval rates remain low at under 40% initially, with appeals extending processes over two years, while overpayments from unreported work—totaling billions annually—highlight enforcement gaps and fraud risks, as convicted fraudsters often evade full repayment.[201] The United Kingdom's Personal Independence Payment (PIP), administered by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), supports working-age adults (16 to State Pension age) with long-term physical or mental conditions affecting daily living or mobility, assessed via points-based criteria without means-testing.[206] Standard daily living component pays £73.90 weekly, enhanced £110.60; mobility equivalents are £28.70 and £75.75, totaling up to £737 monthly for severe cases, intended for extra costs like aids or care rather than income replacement.[207] Reforms announced in 2025 tighten eligibility, requiring at least four points from a single descriptor for daily living awards and excluding lower-scoring mental health claims from mobility aid, projecting £5 billion in savings by reducing rolls amid rising caseloads from 3.5 million in 2023.[208] Critics note assessment errors exceed 50% on initial reviews, fostering distrust, while integration with Universal Credit creates work disincentives through tapered withdrawals, though evidence shows limited employment boosts from incentives alone.[209][210] Germany's system under Social Code Book VI (SGB VI) delivers disability pensions through statutory pension insurance for contributors with at least five years' coverage, graded by earning capacity loss: full if under 3 hours daily work feasible, partial otherwise, with monthly amounts ranging €688 to €2,300 based on prior salary and contribution duration.[211] Severely disabled persons qualify for early old-age pensions from age 60 with 35 years' contributions, reduced by up to 10.8% for early drawdown.[212] Unlike means-tested UK aid, Germany's contributory focus yields lower incidence rates (under 6% for ages 50-64), but supplemental Book XII (SGB XII) provides means-tested social assistance for non-contributors, bridging gaps while emphasizing rehabilitation to restore capacity.[213] Cross-national studies reveal such insurance-heavy models correlate with fewer long-term claims than welfare-dominant systems, though all face fiscal pressures from aging populations and potential over-reliance, with disincentives amplified when benefits exceed low-wage alternatives.[214][215]Reforms and Efficiency Critiques
Critiques of disability policy frameworks often center on structural inefficiencies that disincentivize employment and inflate public expenditures. Empirical studies demonstrate that disability insurance programs create significant work disincentives through benefit cliffs, where earnings above certain thresholds result in abrupt loss of benefits, reducing labor force participation among eligible individuals.[216] For instance, analysis of U.S. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries shows a 10.4 percentage point relative increase in labor force participation upon reaching full retirement age, when benefits automatically convert without work penalties, indicating binding disincentives prior to that point.[217] Similarly, evaluations from the 1990s U.S. reforms reveal that higher disability benefits correlate with reduced employment rates, as claimants face marginal effective tax rates exceeding 100% on additional income.[218] Fraud rates in disability-specific benefits remain low relative to overall welfare systems, with U.K. Personal Independence Payment (PIP) estimated at 0% fraud in official 2024 assessments, though broader overpayments due to error and fraud across benefits totaled 2.9% (£8.4 billion) in fiscal year ending 2025.[189] [219] Critics argue that lax verification, exacerbated by reduced face-to-face assessments post-pandemic, heightens vulnerability to abuse, while administrative costs—often exceeding 5-10% of program budgets in systems like U.S. SSDI—divert resources from beneficiaries.[220] These inefficiencies contribute to dependency traps, where long-term claimants face skill atrophy and higher lifetime fiscal burdens, with U.S. SSDI projected to deplete trust funds by 2035 absent reforms.[221] Proposed reforms emphasize transitioning from passive income support to active integration, such as replacing cash cliffs with tapered benefits to preserve work incentives. In the U.K., 2025 welfare reforms allocate £1 billion to employment support for health and disability claimants, aiming to increase workforce participation by up to 105,000 through personalized job coaching and reduced conditionality barriers, though projected income losses for non-workers may exacerbate poverty risks.[222] [223] U.S. initiatives like the Ticket to Work program seek to mitigate overpayment risks via trial work periods, allowing beneficiaries to test employment without immediate debt accrual, yet uptake remains low due to persistent fears of benefit loss.[224] Efficiency gains could arise from stricter medical eligibility tied to functional capacity assessments and vocational rehabilitation mandates, as evidenced by Dutch and Swedish models where partial benefit designs raised employment by 10-20% among marginal claimants without increasing overall program costs.[225] Such approaches prioritize causal links between policy design and labor outcomes over expansive entitlements, potentially yielding net societal savings through reduced long-term dependency.[215]Activism and Social Movements
Origins and Key Milestones
The disability rights movement originated in the United States during the 1960s, building on the momentum of the civil rights movement as advocates with disabilities began organizing to combat exclusion and institutionalization. Early efforts focused on deinstitutionalization and self-advocacy, with figures like Edward Roberts establishing centers for independent living in Berkeley, California, in 1972 to promote community-based support over segregated facilities.[226][227] Preceding this, foundational developments in the 19th and early 20th centuries laid groundwork through education and vocational initiatives, such as the establishment of formal Deaf education in 1817 and the Smith-Fess Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1920, which provided federal funding for rehabilitative services for veterans and civilians with disabilities.[110][226] The post-World War II era amplified visibility with the return of over 16 million veterans, many disabled, prompting organizations like the Paralyzed Veterans of America, founded in 1946, to advocate for accessible infrastructure and benefits.[228] A pivotal milestone occurred in 1973 with the passage of the Rehabilitation Act, particularly Section 504, which prohibited discrimination against individuals with disabilities in federally funded programs, marking the first federal civil rights protection for this group.[100] Enforcement stalled until 1977, when activists, led by groups including the Black Panther Party's support, staged a 25-day occupation of federal buildings in San Francisco and other cities, compelling the government to issue regulations ensuring equal access.[228][229] The movement gained international traction in 1981 with the United Nations' designation of the International Year of Disabled Persons, fostering global awareness and leading to the 1983 Decade of Disabled Persons.[228] In the U.S., the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) represented a landmark achievement, extending anti-discrimination protections to employment, public services, and accommodations, signed into law by President George H.W. Bush after advocacy including the 1988 Capitol Crawl protest where over 1,000 demonstrators ascended the U.S. Capitol steps.[109][229]Achievements in Rights and Access
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13 December 2006 and entering into force on 3 May 2008 after ratification by 20 states, articulates binding obligations for signatory nations to ensure non-discrimination, accessibility, and participation in society for persons with disabilities.[25] It mandates reasonable accommodations in education, employment, and public services, influencing domestic laws worldwide; as of 2023, 185 UN member states had ratified it, promoting standards like universal design in infrastructure and information formats such as Braille or sign language interpretation.[24] In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), signed into law on 26 July 1990 by President George H. W. Bush, extended civil rights protections by prohibiting discrimination in employment (Title I), public services (Title II), and private accommodations like businesses and transportation (Title III).[230] The ADA required physical modifications including curb cuts, ramps, widened doorways, and elevators in new constructions, alongside accessible communication via Braille signage and auxiliary aids, resulting in over 50,000 public accommodations retrofitted by 2000 to comply with federal enforcement.[231] Complementing this, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 had earlier barred discrimination in federally funded programs, setting precedents for accessible public transit and facilities.[232] The United Kingdom's Disability Discrimination Act 1995 outlawed discrimination in employment, goods, services, and premises, requiring employers with 20 or more staff to make reasonable adjustments; this framework evolved into the Equality Act 2010, which unified protections and extended duties to anticipate access needs in public sectors.[233] In education, the U.S. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) guaranteed free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, serving 7.5 million students with disabilities by 2023 through individualized plans and inclusion mandates.[110] Several nations implemented employment quotas to enhance access: Germany mandates that firms with 20 or more employees reserve 5% of positions for persons with severe disabilities, with non-compliance penalties funding integration programs; similar systems exist in Austria (1 per 25 employees) and Argentina (4% in public sector roles).[234] These measures, alongside CRPD-inspired incentives, have correlated with higher disabled employment rates in quota-adhering countries compared to non-quota peers, though enforcement varies.[235]Internal Divisions and Overreach Critiques
The disability rights movement has experienced significant internal divisions, particularly between advocates emphasizing cultural identity and those prioritizing medical interventions to alleviate impairments. In the autism community, a prominent schism exists between proponents of the neurodiversity paradigm, who view autism as a natural neurological variation rather than a disorder requiring cure, and those adhering to a medical model that seeks treatments to mitigate severe functional limitations. Neurodiversity advocates, often autistic individuals, oppose research aimed at causation or cure, arguing it promotes eugenics and devalues autistic existence, as articulated in position papers from groups like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.[236] In contrast, many parents and clinicians highlight the profound challenges of high-support-needs autism, such as nonverbal communication deficits and self-injurious behaviors, advocating for interventions like behavioral therapies to improve quality of life, with surveys indicating that families of severely affected individuals often prioritize symptom reduction over identity affirmation.[237] This divide has intensified since the early 2010s, leading to public clashes where neurodiversity rhetoric is criticized for marginalizing those with intellectual disabilities who cannot self-advocate.[238] Similar tensions manifest in the Deaf community regarding cochlear implants, where cultural Deaf activists regard deafness as a linguistic and cultural identity rather than a disability, viewing implants as an assault on Deaf culture that prioritizes assimilation into hearing norms.[239] Opponents within the community argue that implants enable spoken language acquisition and broader societal participation, with data from longitudinal studies showing implanted children achieving near-normal hearing thresholds and improved speech perception by age 5, benefiting employment and education outcomes.[240] This conflict, escalating since the FDA's 1990 approval of implants for children, pits rights to cultural preservation against parental autonomy in medical decisions, with some Deaf leaders framing implantation as cultural genocide while evidence indicates high satisfaction rates among recipients (over 80% in follow-up studies).[241] These intra-community debates underscore broader fractures, including between physical and intellectual disability advocates, where the former often prioritize independent living while the latter face underrepresentation in policy due to dependency on caregivers.[242] Critiques of overreach in disability activism frequently target the exploitation of legal frameworks like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), where serial lawsuits have proliferated, often filed by a small cadre of repeat plaintiffs and attorneys against small businesses for minor or pre-existing barriers, yielding settlements without genuine remediation.[243] Federal filings surged from 2,143 in 2013 to over 10,000 by 2022, with California alone accounting for 25% of cases, many involving "testers" who visit sites solely to identify violations for profit rather than experiencing discrimination.[244] Detractors, including business advocacy groups, contend this abuses the ADA's intent, deterring compliance through fear of costly litigation (average defense costs exceeding $50,000 even in dismissals) and fostering public skepticism toward legitimate accommodations.[245] Additionally, some activism's rejection of the medical model—insisting all impairments stem solely from societal barriers—has been faulted for downplaying biological realities, as in social model critiques that ignore evidence-based treatments' efficacy in reducing dependency, potentially hindering pragmatic reforms.[20] These patterns, while advancing awareness, risk alienating allies by prioritizing ideological purity over empirical outcomes, as noted in analyses of movement contradictions.[246]Societal Integration Challenges
Employment Barriers and Incentives
People with disabilities face substantially lower employment rates than those without disabilities across developed economies. In the United States, the employment-population ratio for working-age individuals with disabilities stood at 22.7 percent in 2024, compared to approximately 75 percent for those without disabilities, marking a persistent gap despite modest improvements over the past decade.[247][248] Similarly, OECD data indicate that employment gaps between people with and without disabilities range from 10 to over 40 percentage points, with individuals with disabilities being 2.3 times more likely to be unemployed as of 2019, a disparity that has shown little narrowing in the subsequent years.[249][250] Key barriers include structural limitations such as inadequate workplace accommodations, transportation challenges, and insufficient education or training tailored to disabilities, which collectively hinder access to suitable jobs.[251] Attitudinal barriers, including employer biases and low expectations of productivity from disabled workers, further exacerbate exclusion, as evidenced by surveys reporting discrimination as a cited obstacle in over 20 percent of cases among unemployed disabled individuals.[251] Physical and cognitive impairments themselves impose causal constraints on certain roles, particularly those requiring manual dexterity or high mobility, leading to skills mismatches that reduce employability without targeted interventions.[249] Compounding these barriers are policy-induced disincentives embedded in disability insurance systems, which often create "benefit cliffs" where incremental earnings trigger abrupt loss of support, resulting in effective marginal tax rates exceeding 100 percent and discouraging labor force participation.[225] In the U.S. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs, recipients face sharp reductions or elimination of benefits upon surpassing earnings thresholds—such as the $1,550 substantial gainful activity limit for non-blind individuals in 2024—trapping many in poverty and dependency rather than incentivizing gradual workforce re-entry.[252] Empirical analyses confirm these effects: rule changes softening cliffs, like gradual benefit phase-outs, have increased work activity among beneficiaries by up to 10-15 percent, while strict eligibility thresholds demonstrably reduce employment resumption even after health improvements.[225][253][254] Reforms addressing these disincentives, such as trial work periods or voucher-based incentives, have shown promise in boosting employment without eroding program integrity, though adoption remains uneven due to administrative complexities and fiscal concerns.[218] Internationally, countries with more flexible disability-to-work transitions, like those piloting earnings subsidies in OECD nations, report higher integration rates, underscoring that while inherent disability-related limitations persist, misaligned incentives amplify barriers beyond what causal impairments alone would dictate.[255][249]Education and Accommodation Realities
In the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), enacted in 1975 and requiring free appropriate public education with individualized accommodations, mandates services for approximately 7.5 million students with disabilities, representing 15% of public school enrollment as of 2022.[256] These accommodations, outlined in Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), include specialized instruction, assistive technology, and modifications like extended test time, but implementation varies widely by district and disability type, often prioritizing inclusion in general education settings over segregated special classes.[256] Despite these provisions, high school graduation rates for students with disabilities lag significantly behind peers, reaching 70.6% in the 2019-2020 school year compared to the national average of 87%, with rates as low as 62% in some analyses when excluding alternative diplomas.[257] [258] [259] Postsecondary outcomes reflect similar disparities: in 2023, the six-year college graduation rate for disabled students was 49.5%, versus 68% for non-disabled peers, even among those receiving accommodations like note-taking services or priority registration.[260] Academic achievement gaps persist, with National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores for students with disabilities trailing non-disabled students by 28 to 40 points in reading and math as of 2022, and meta-analyses showing a consistent 1.17 standard deviation deficit in reading proficiency.[261] [262] Special education expenditures underscore the resource intensity of accommodations, averaging $13,127 per identified student annually across U.S. districts, roughly double the per-pupil spending for general education, with costs escalating to $82,000 or more for severe cases requiring intensive supports like one-on-one aides.[263] [264] Federal IDEA funding covers only about 14% of these costs, far below the promised 40%, straining local budgets and prompting critiques of inefficiency, such as over-identification driven by incentives for additional funding.[265] Empirical evidence on accommodation efficacy reveals mixed results, with peer-reviewed reviews indicating that testing modifications like extra time improve scores for both disabled and non-disabled students but rarely close overall gaps, potentially inflating perceptions of progress without addressing underlying skill deficits.[266] Systematic analyses of inclusion—placing disabled students in mainstream classrooms with supports—find it neither reliably boosts nor harms academic or socioemotional outcomes compared to segregated settings, with specific subgroups like deaf or blind students often faring worse in inclusive environments due to unmet specialized needs.[267] [268] These findings challenge policy emphases on universal inclusion, rooted more in ideological commitments than causal evidence of superior results, as persistent gaps suggest accommodations mitigate barriers but do not equate opportunities for substantive learning gains.[269]Healthcare Access and Over-Diagnosis Risks
People with disabilities encounter substantial barriers to healthcare access, including financial constraints, transportation limitations, and inadequate provider training. In the United States, 1 in 4 working-age adults (18-44 years) with disabilities reported an unmet healthcare need due to cost in recent surveys, compared to lower rates among those without disabilities.[147] Additionally, 1 in 6 adults with disabilities aged 18-64 cited transportation as a barrier to care.[147] Globally, the World Health Organization notes that individuals with disabilities face transportation challenges 15 times more frequently than those without, exacerbating delays in preventive and routine services.[1] These disparities persist despite legal mandates like the Americans with Disabilities Act, with people with disabilities being 2.3 times more likely to delay medical care and 2.7 times more likely to forgo it altogether due to structural and attitudinal obstacles.[270] Unmet needs are particularly acute for intellectual and developmental disabilities, where financial barriers affect 61.4% of cases in scoping reviews of global data, often compounded by inaccessible facilities and negative provider interactions.[271] In the U.S., adults with disabilities report fair or poor health at rates four times higher than the general population, correlating with higher unmet needs (17.0% versus 8.8% without disabilities in 2017 data).[272][273] During the COVID-19 pandemic, these gaps widened, with 32% of those with disabilities needing additional treatments for unmet needs related to the virus.[274] Amid efforts to improve access, risks of over-diagnosis emerge, particularly for neurodevelopmental conditions like ADHD and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), where diagnostic expansions may outpace etiological evidence. ADHD prevalence has surged, with empirical reviews identifying over-diagnosis driven by broadened criteria, pharmaceutical incentives, and reduced thresholds for impairment, despite heritability estimates of 60-70% indicating a genetic base but not justifying universal increases.[275][276] A systematic scoping review found insufficient comprehensive evidence against over-diagnosis claims but highlighted suggestive patterns in child and adolescent cases, including diagnostic substitution from other conditions.[277] For ASD, while awareness has increased diagnoses, debates persist on over-diagnosis, as evaluations require rigorous processes beyond symptom checklists, yet co-occurrence with ADHD (up to 20% overlap in developmental deviations) raises concerns of conflation without distinct causal validation.[278][279] These trends may incentivize diagnosis for accessing services or accommodations, potentially pathologizing normal variation, as evidenced by studies showing elevated ASD-like symptoms in primary ADHD cohorts without independent ASD confirmation.[280] Peer-reviewed analyses urge caution, prioritizing empirical biomarkers over subjective reports to mitigate iatrogenic harm from unnecessary labeling or interventions.[281]Cultural and Representational Aspects
Media Tropes and Stereotypes
Media representations of disability frequently rely on recurring stereotypes that simplify complex lived experiences, contributing to public misconceptions. A 1991 analysis by disabled activist Paul Hunt, commissioned by the BBC, identified ten prevalent tropes in British media: the disabled person as pitiable or pathetic; as an object of curiosity or violence; as sinister or evil; as atmosphere in horror settings; as super-crip overcoming extraordinary odds; as an object of ridicule; as their own worst enemy through denial; as a burden on others; as non-sexual; and as incapable of participating in everyday life.[282] These patterns persist into the 21st century, with a 2025 review of film and television finding that stereotypical portrayals, such as the villainous disabled character or the inspirational hero, remain dominant despite calls for nuance.[283] Such tropes often emphasize tragedy, villainy, or exceptionalism over ordinary agency, underrepresenting the diversity of disabled lives. For instance, the "bitter disabled person" stereotype portrays individuals as resentful due to their condition, implying misery as inherent rather than situational, as critiqued in analyses of scripted series from 2016-2023 where disabled characters comprised only 3.9% of speaking roles, frequently confined to pity-arousing or antagonistic roles.[284][285] The "super-crip" narrative, glorifying improbable triumphs, sets unrealistic benchmarks that marginalize those unable to meet them, fostering a view of disability as a personal failing to conquer rather than a neutral variation interacting with environmental barriers.[286] These depictions influence societal attitudes by reinforcing stigma and pity over empathy or equality. Research applying the Stereotype Content Model indicates that media portrayals link disability to low competence and warmth, perpetuating biases that affect hiring and policy support, with empirical studies showing viewers exposed to such content exhibit reduced willingness to accommodate disabled individuals in professional settings.[287] While recent productions show incremental shifts toward complex characters—evident in a 2024-2025 uptick in authentic casting—persistent underrepresentation (e.g., visible disabilities over invisible ones) and trope reliance suggest media's role in sustaining causal disconnects between disability and systemic barriers rather than innate deficits.[283][288]Disability Sports and Exceptionalism
Disability sports originated in the post-World War II era as therapeutic activities for injured veterans, with the Stoke Mandeville Games held on July 29, 1948, at the Stoke Mandeville Hospital in England, organized by neurologist Ludwig Guttmann to promote rehabilitation through archery and netball for spinal cord injury patients.[289] These games expanded internationally, leading to the first Paralympic Games in Rome in 1960, initially limited to wheelchair athletes with spinal injuries but growing to include diverse impairments.[290] The International Paralympic Committee (IPC), established in 1989, now oversees the Paralympic Games, held every four years following the Olympics, with events in athletics, swimming, wheelchair basketball, and others adapting rules for fairness.[291] To ensure equitable competition, Paralympic sports employ a classification system grouping athletes by type and severity of impairment, such as eight eligible categories including impaired muscle power, limb deficiency, and intellectual impairment, denoted by prefixes like T (track) or S (swimming) followed by numbers indicating functional limitation degree.[291] This evidence-based process, evaluated by certified classifiers, aims to minimize the performance impact of disabilities, though controversies arise over intentional misrepresentation or technological aids blurring lines with able-bodied sports, as seen in cases like Oscar Pistorius's carbon-fiber blades enabling near-Olympic sprint times in 2012.[292] Public and media portrayals often emphasize "exceptionalism" in disability sports, framing athletes as "supercrips" who heroically transcend their impairments through sheer willpower, a narrative critiqued in disability studies for perpetuating stereotypes that disability is an individual deficit to conquer rather than a social context.[293] [294] Empirical comparisons reveal Paralympic performances typically lag Olympic benchmarks by 10-50% across events—for instance, the men's 100m T44 world record stands at 10.81 seconds versus the Olympic 9.58 seconds—indicating elite para-athletes operate at heightened but distinctly lower physiological outputs, challenging inspirational overstatements that equate them to able-bodied feats.[295] This exceptionalism, while increasing visibility and funding, risks setting unattainable norms for the broader disabled population, where participation rates remain low due to access barriers, and diverts attention from systemic integration failures in mainstream sports.[296] Critiques from academic sources, often aligned with the social model of disability prevalent in left-leaning scholarship, argue the supercrip trope reinforces ableism by implying non-exceptional disabled individuals fail to "overcome," yet such views overlook causal factors like innate physiological limits and training disparities, as para-athletes frequently lack equivalent resources to Olympians.[297] In Paris 2024, over 4,400 athletes competed across 22 sports, achieving milestones like record viewership, but medal distributions correlated more with national investment than inspirational narratives, with wealthier nations dominating, underscoring that outcomes stem from material support rather than exceptional willpower alone.[298] Disability sports thus provide competitive outlets and health benefits but highlight persistent gaps, where exceptional cases do not generalize to everyday participation or erase broader societal disincentives.Intersections with Aging and Norms
Disability prevalence escalates with advancing age due to the inexorable biological processes of senescence, including sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and cognitive deterioration, which progressively impair mobility, cognition, and self-care capabilities. In the United States, 2022 data indicate that 43.9% of adults aged 65 years and older reported at least one disability, a rate over twice that of younger adults aged 18-44 years (23.6%).[148] Among those aged 75 and older, the figure reaches 46%, with serious difficulty in walking or climbing stairs affecting 30%.[299] These patterns hold globally, as physiological decline—driven by factors like telomere shortening and chronic inflammation—renders age-related disabilities far more common than congenital or trauma-induced ones in younger cohorts.[300] In the oldest-old (aged 90+), disability incidence triples rapidly, with 44% exhibiting dependency in activities of daily living (ADLs) at ages 90-94, rising to 66% at 95-99 and 92% among centenarians; walking difficulties predominate, affecting 70%.[301] Causal mechanisms include accumulated oxidative stress and reduced regenerative capacity, exacerbating vulnerabilities to falls, arthritis, and sensory loss, rather than external social factors alone.[302] Longitudinal studies confirm that net of period effects, recent cohorts experience higher ADL and instrumental ADL (IADL) disabilities, underscoring aging's deterministic role over environmental variables.[303] Societal norms intersect with these realities by recalibrating expectations of autonomy and productivity along age gradients, often normalizing impairments in the elderly as inevitable rather than aberrant. Unlike disabilities in working-age adults, which challenge norms of economic contribution and trigger demands for accommodations under laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act, age-attendant limitations frequently elicit familial caregiving or institutionalization without equivalent policy interventions, reflecting a pragmatic acceptance of diminished capacity.[304] This distinction arises from causal realism: restorative potential wanes with chronological age, shifting focus from rehabilitation to palliation, though it risks undertreating reversible conditions like treatable depression or malnutrition misattributed to "normal aging." Academic discourse, often from institutionally biased perspectives emphasizing ableism, frames this as compounded discrimination, yet empirical evidence prioritizes biological inevitability over systemic prejudice.[305] For individuals with lifelong disabilities entering old age, intersections compound: preexisting conditions accelerate decline via secondary effects like disuse atrophy, while norms may overlook their distinct needs, such as tailored assistive technologies amid sensory overlaps with age-related losses.[306] Prevalence data reveal that early-onset disability correlates with higher mortality risk in later life, as cumulative physiological burdens—independent of socioeconomic confounders—hasten frailty.[307] Norms of "successful aging," which privilege activity despite evidence of inevitable entropy, can impose undue pressure, ignoring first-principles limits on human durability.[308]Emerging Developments
Technological Interventions
Technological interventions encompass a range of engineered devices and systems designed to compensate for or restore impaired functions in individuals with disabilities, including prosthetic limbs, sensory implants, and neural interfaces. These technologies leverage advancements in robotics, artificial intelligence, and biomechanics to enhance mobility, communication, and sensory perception, though outcomes vary based on individual physiology and device integration.[309][310] In mobility impairments, bionic prosthetics and exoskeletons represent significant progress. A 2024 study demonstrated that a neural-controlled bionic leg, using electromyographic signals from residual muscles, enabled amputees to walk with biomimetic gait patterns, achieving natural step lengths and speeds comparable to non-amputees during overground locomotion.[311] Similarly, MIT-developed prosthetic systems allow users to control lower-limb devices via their nervous systems, restoring intuitive movement without traditional socket interfaces.[312] Osseointegrated and myoelectric prosthetics have also advanced, with AI integration improving intent detection and reducing energy expenditure, though long-term durability and user adaptation remain challenges.[313] For sensory disabilities, cochlear implants provide auditory restoration by bypassing damaged inner ear structures to stimulate the auditory nerve directly. Meta-analyses indicate unilateral implants yield significant improvements in speech perception, with open-set sentence recognition increasing by approximately 50-70% post-implantation, alongside enhanced quality of life measures.[314] Bilateral implantation further boosts performance in noisy environments, with speech understanding gains of 12.6 percentage points over unilateral setups.[315] Effectiveness is higher in post-lingually deafened adults and children implanted early, but variability persists due to neural degeneration and surgical factors.[316] Emerging brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) target severe paralysis by decoding neural signals for device control. Clinical trials, such as those using intracortical electrodes, have enabled tetraplegic individuals to generate speech at rates up to 62 words per minute with 75% accuracy, surpassing prior non-invasive methods.[317] Fully implanted systems, like those in Neuralink's 2025 trials, aim to facilitate thought-based operation of computers and prosthetics, with early feasibility studies reporting low adverse event rates over five years.[318][319] However, chronic signal degradation and ethical concerns regarding invasiveness limit widespread adoption, with success dependent on precise electrode placement and user training.[320]Policy Shifts in 2024-2025
In 2025, the Social Security Administration (SSA) implemented a 2.5% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, effective January, increasing average monthly payments by approximately $50 for SSDI recipients and $40 for SSI.[321] [322] Additionally, SSA raised Medicaid While Working state threshold amounts, enabling more disabled individuals to retain Medicaid coverage while earning higher incomes without losing eligibility.[323] The agency also ceased issuing paper checks for benefits on September 30, 2025, mandating electronic payments to reduce administrative costs and fraud risks.[324] These adjustments aimed to account for inflation while promoting workforce reentry, though critics from advocacy groups argued they insufficiently addressed rising living costs.[325] The Trump administration pursued tighter SSDI eligibility criteria through proposed regulatory changes, potentially reducing approvals by up to 20% overall and 30% for applicants over 50 by revising medical-vocational guidelines and emphasizing return-to-work potential over permanent impairment.[326] [327] In August 2025, revisions to SSI in-kind support rules threatened to reduce benefits for nearly 400,000 low-income disabled recipients by reclassifying food and shelter assistance as countable income, effectively cutting monthly payments by up to $300 in some cases.[325] Federal budget proposals, including a House bill, advanced cuts to programs like SNAP and housing assistance disproportionately impacting disabled individuals, with estimated $37 billion reductions over a decade.[328] These measures reflected an emphasis on curbing program growth amid concerns over improper payments exceeding $10 billion annually in SSDI, though disability rights organizations contended they undermined support for those with verifiable limitations.[329] Employment-related policies shifted toward deregulation, with a May 2025 Department of Energy rule proposing to eliminate physical accessibility mandates for certain facilities and an October update to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act rescinding the 7% federal contractor hiring goal for disabled workers, alongside voluntary self-identification requirements.[330] [331] An April 2025 executive order discontinued federal recognition of disparate-impact discrimination, potentially easing employer burdens under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) but raising concerns over reduced accommodations.[330] In September, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revoked long-term telework approvals for employees with disabilities as part of a broader return-to-office policy, citing operational needs despite prior ADA-based exceptions.[332] Healthcare access faced pressures from resurfaced Medicaid work requirements in legislative packages, alongside Project 2025-inspired block grant proposals that could cap funding and impose eligibility reviews, affecting millions reliant on the program for long-term services.[333] [334] Such changes prioritized fiscal restraint and self-sufficiency, with empirical data showing SSDI rolls growing 20% since 2010 amid static employment rates for disabled adults below 20%.[335]Research Priorities and Debates
Research priorities in disability encompass improving data collection for evidence-based policy, as high-quality disability data underpins actionable health research and reveals disparities in outcomes like employment and longevity.[336] The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) emphasizes innovative studies on health and well-being across all ages, including congenital anomalies and chronic conditions, with strategic plans updated through 2025 to address gaps in intervention efficacy.[337] [338] Globally, UNICEF's 2025 Disability Research Prioritization Exercise identifies targeted investigations into barriers for children with disabilities, such as access to education and nutrition, prioritizing empirical studies on environmental and social determinants over ideological frameworks.[339] [340] A central debate concerns disability models, where the medical model attributes impairments to biological deficits amenable to treatment, while the social model locates disability in societal barriers, often critiqued for underemphasizing empirical evidence of inherent physiological limitations that persist despite accommodations.[65] Proponents of the biopsychosocial synthesis argue it integrates genetic and environmental data, revealing how individual impairments interact with external factors, as evidenced by studies showing that social interventions alone fail to mitigate functional deficits in conditions like severe mobility loss.[67] [71] Critics of the social model's dominance in academia note its alignment with institutional biases favoring environmental explanations, which may delay research into causal biological mechanisms, such as genetic mutations accounting for up to 50% of intellectual disabilities.[341] Overdiagnosis represents another contested area, particularly for neurodevelopmental conditions like ADHD and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), where U.S. adult ADHD diagnoses reached 15 million by 2024 amid rising prevalence rates uncorrelated with genetic shifts, prompting concerns that diagnostic expansion reflects incentive-driven broadening of criteria rather than true incidence increases.[342] [343] In the UK, local leaders in 2025 highlighted overdiagnosis of special needs in schools, attributing it to resource pressures and questioning the validity of surging ASD identifications without corresponding biological markers.[344] Counterarguments from advocacy groups assert underdiagnosis due to historical neglect, yet empirical reviews indicate that post-2020 surges in neurodivergence labels coincide with policy expansions, exacerbating shortages of interventions like stimulants without proportional gains in functional outcomes.[345] [346] Etiological research prioritizes disentangling genetic from environmental causes, with studies showing intellectual disability arises from shared polygenic risks and exposures like prenatal toxins, where heritability estimates range from 40-80% depending on severity.[347] [341] For ASD, 2025 analyses confirm gene-environment interactions, including maternal infections and pollutants, but emphasize that genetic variants explain core traits more reliably than modifiable factors, challenging priorities overly focused on social prevention at the expense of biomedical cures.[348] [349] These debates underscore tensions between descriptive epidemiology and causal inference, with calls for longitudinal trials to test intervention impacts amid critiques that disability studies often privilege qualitative narratives over randomized controlled evidence.[350]References
- https://www.[researchgate](/page/ResearchGate).net/publication/317694369_The_use_of_person-first_language_in_scholarly_writing_may_accentuate_stigma
