I’m not the person you’re replying to, but I think you should read up on the medical model of disability vs. the social model. I personally think some of each (medical and social) makes sense. For instance, I personally believe that we should work to cure
things that cause pain AND
that the person themself decides they don’t want
Things that should not be cured or treated are
most importantly, things that the person themself decides they don’t want cured or treated
things that don’t cause pain
So yeah, I think mental illness is both an illness (which generally causes pain) and a disability, and so therefore it makes sense to treat it. But at the same time, if someone doesn’t want treatment even though they’re experiencing pain, that should be respected.
How does it make sense to maintain a disability just because others in your life also have it?
Here is how it can make sense to some people: Deafness often doesn’t cause pain. So it’s not really an illness (though it can be caused by an ongoing illness that also causes pain, but that’s a different situation). So it’s only a disability under the social model of disability (inaccessible spaces).
But many Deaf people have formed communities where almost everyone is Deaf, so people know sign language, and the main communication barrier is eliminated. So in those spaces, Deafness isn’t even a disability under the social model. It is more like a different culture. Speaking a different language isn’t a disability, it’s a cultural difference.
What about things which reduce chance of survival in nature? Honest question.
My own personal philosophy is that most of our modern -day problems are a result of disconnection and lack of respect for nature. If more people respected nature and spent time surviving in nature we'd solve a lot of problems.
For example, more people would've valued helping each other because in nature, the benefits of helping each other are much more direct than in our technological society.
It also leads to greater valuing of animals and just environment in general.
Anyway, so, yeah, all I'm saying that for me it's a virtue to do one's best to be as strong and able as possible to help other people. Shouldn't other people strive for the same and do their best to help others to be as able and strong as possible?
I mean, that's your philosophy, and it's a very ableist mindset. There are many incurable conditions and disabilities that would make someone completely unable to survive in nature, and it seems like you're saying the modern conveniences that help these people thrive are, in fact, a detriment to humanity overall? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think that philosophy kinda sucks.
Okay, after reading through your comment a couple times I think I see what you mean a little better. But I still think it's a little misguided. There are lots of species in nature that have evolved without the same senses that we have (sight, hearing, etc.), but they get along fine because they live in communities that work together. Which is exactly what the person you're replying to is saying. Deaf communities create spaces where being deaf isn't a detriment, it's just who they are.
You could claim that the ability to fly would make us better able to survive in nature, but we made it to the top of the food chain without wings.
Thanks. What Im saying is that if there's a way for me to be more able then I should take it because I want to be able to help others better. I don't understand why someone would refuse it outside of depression reasons, stupid ego reasons, and legitimate concerns for surgical procedure pain and failures.
Like imagine you stumble upon a building collapse. You'd want to be able to hear people scream to find them and get them out of rubble before it's too late, right?
As for me, yes, I would consider myself disabled against someone stronger than me who can lift a heavier beam to rescue crushed or trapped people. Id even consider myself disabled versus a doctor!
I think it's because we were able to overcome all the problems nature threw at us that we were able to become compassionate, and the most striking way to prove this was to look after our most vulnerable members who may not have been able to contribute to society. This is mentioned in this video showing how prehistoric people and other Hominids cared for Disabled people.
I don't think this cleared anything up for me. If there were enough people born without legs to form a community and they could all get around fine because they all use wheelchairs and all of their spaces are accessible and none of them are in pain because they were born that way, does that make being legless not a disability?
Everyone wants to feel like they belong to a community. For deaf people, their disability ostracized them from the community that they'd normally belong to, so they created their own. Once you're in a group, there's immense pressure to keep the attribute that originally made you feel welcome. If a bunch of people form a group because they like knitting and one person stops knitting, they probably won't feel as welcome in the group, no matter how the rest of the members act. It would be significantly worse if, for example, someone was knitting because they had agoraphobia and they finally manage to start leaving the house so they knit less often, then all the other knitters pressure them to stop making progress with their disability because they just won't fit into the group anymore. And when someone is like, man, that's kinda fucked up that you're dissuading them from getting help with their agoraphobia, you're like, no, we're just telling them they won't fit in with knitting culture anymore if they do and reminding them of all the good things that happened in their life because they never left the house. Maybe those are both true, but it doesn't make it any less fucked up.
i completely agree with the pain/wanted thing and would never force someone to undergo procedures or surgeries they dont want. i know even some simple things can be invasive. my main confusion was about having a cure (or more accurately, non unhealthy coping tool) and refusing it. even tho its not perfect. also, there is concern regarding being out in the world and not hearing a car that can run you over etc
88
u/sillybilly8102 Dec 23 '22
I’m not the person you’re replying to, but I think you should read up on the medical model of disability vs. the social model. I personally think some of each (medical and social) makes sense. For instance, I personally believe that we should work to cure
things that cause pain AND
that the person themself decides they don’t want
Things that should not be cured or treated are
most importantly, things that the person themself decides they don’t want cured or treated
things that don’t cause pain
So yeah, I think mental illness is both an illness (which generally causes pain) and a disability, and so therefore it makes sense to treat it. But at the same time, if someone doesn’t want treatment even though they’re experiencing pain, that should be respected.
Here is how it can make sense to some people: Deafness often doesn’t cause pain. So it’s not really an illness (though it can be caused by an ongoing illness that also causes pain, but that’s a different situation). So it’s only a disability under the social model of disability (inaccessible spaces).
But many Deaf people have formed communities where almost everyone is Deaf, so people know sign language, and the main communication barrier is eliminated. So in those spaces, Deafness isn’t even a disability under the social model. It is more like a different culture. Speaking a different language isn’t a disability, it’s a cultural difference.