Advertisement

Rethinking disability: the social model of disability and chronic disease

  • Sara GoeringEmail author
Ethics (CR MacKenzie and I de Melo-Martín, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Ethics

Abstract

Disability is commonly viewed as a problem that exists in a person’s body and requires medical treatment. The social model of disability, by contrast, distinguishes between impairment and disability, identifying the latter as a disadvantage that stems from a lack of fit between a body and its social environment. This paper describes the social model of disability and then considers how it might deal with chronic disease or impairment and why medical professionals should learn about disability perspectives to improve their practice.

Keywords

Disability Impairment Chronic disease Social model 

Notes

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Sara Goering declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Silvers A. A fatal attraction to normalizing. In: Parens, editor. Enhancing human traits. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press; 1998. p. 95–123.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crow C. Including all of our lives. In: Morris, editor. Encounters with strangers. London: The Women’s Press Ltd; 1996. quote from p. 208.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morris J, editor. Encounters with strangers: feminism and disability. London: The Women’s Press Ltd.; 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mairs N. Waist-high in the world: a life among the nondisabled. Boston: Beacon; 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hockenberry J. Moving violations: war zones, wheelchairs, and declarations of independence. New York: Hyperion; 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wendell S. The rejected body. New York: Routledge; 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keith L. Encounters with strangers. In: Morris, editor. Encounters with strangers. London: The Women’s Press; 1996. quote p. 71.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oliver M. Understanding disability: from theory to practice. New York: St. Martin’s Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silvers A. On the possibility and desirability of constructing a neutral conception of disability. Theor Med. 2003;24:471–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kent D. Somewhere a Mockingbird. In: Parens, Asch, editors. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press; 2000. p. 57–63.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silvers A. A fatal attraction to normalizing. In: Parens, editor. Enhancing human traits. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wendell S. Unhealthy disabled: treating chronic illnesses as disability. Hypatia. 2001;16(4):17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thomas C. Female forms: experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campbell F. Medical education and disability studies. J Med Human. 2009;30(4):221–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evans J. Why the medical model needs disability studies (and Vice Versa). Disabil Stud Q. 2004;24(4).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Switzer J. Disabled rights: American disability policy and the fight for equality. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirschner K. Rethinking anger and advocacy in bioethics. Am J Bioeth. 2001;1(3):60–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eddey G, Robey K. Considering the culture of disability in cultural competence education. Acad Med. 2005;80:706–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garland Thomson R. The case for conserving disability. J Bioeth Inq. 2012;9:339–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McBryde Johnson H. Too late to die young. New York: Henry Holt & Co; 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parens E. The fragility of goodness. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1995;5(2):141–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations