Inclusion of Assistive Technologies in a Basic Package of Essential Healthcare Service
This paper outlines the potential and necessity of the development of assistive technologies (AT) for people with intellectual disabilities (IDs). We analyse a policy recommendation designed to determine the contents of a basic health package supplied by the state, known as the Dunning Funnel. We contend that the Dunning Funnel is a useful methodology, but is weakened by a potentially relativistic understanding of “necessity” in relation to the requirements of people with IDs (i.e., community standards will determine whether AT are necessary). We remedy this defect by using the capabilities approach as outlined by Martha Nussbaum. We argue that this approach provides a strong normative case for ensuring that communities provide help to people with IDs, if those communities are to achieve a minimal standard of justice. However, the capabilities approach does not offer much specific guidance on how AT ought to be distributed, nor does it offer guidance on risks, like the bottomless pit problem. We propose that the Dunning Funnel used in combination with the capabilities approach will provide a suitable heuristic for determining the distribution of AT in a basic health package.
KeywordsAssistive technologies Intellectual disability Justice Distribution Basic health package Capabilities approach
This research was supported by funding from the charity RESPECT and the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under REA Grant Agreement No. PCOFUND-GA-2013-608728.
- American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2017). Definition of intellectual disability. AAIDD. http://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition. Accessed 26 January 2016.
- Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe. (2015). Report on global challenges in Assistive Technology. AAATE. http://assistid.eu/adminbackend/resources/report-on-global-challenges-inataaate-conference-2015.pdf. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
- Carey, A. C., Friedman, M. G., & Bryen, D. N. (2005). Use of electronic technologies by people with intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation, 43(5), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2005)43[322:UOETBP]2.0.CO;2.Google Scholar
- Fabre, C. (2008). New technologies, justice, and the body. In J. S. Dryzek, B. Honig, & A. Phillips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political theory (pp. 713-728). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548439.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199548439-e-39.
- Gamberini, L., Alcaniz, M., Barresi, G., Fabregat, M., Ibanez, F., & Prontu, L. (2006). Cognition, technology and games for the elderly: An introduction to ELDERGAMES Project. PsychNology Journal, 4(3), 285–308.Google Scholar
- Joyce, T., Bankhead, I., Davidson, T., King, S., Liddiard, H., & Willner, P. (2015). Guidance on the assessment and diagnosis of intellectual disabilities in adulthood. The British Psychological Society. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/ID%20assessment%20guidance.pdf. Accessed 21 November 2017.
- Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. London: Belknap Harvard.Google Scholar
- Nussbaum, M. (2010). The capabilities of people with cognitive disabilities. In E. F. Kittay & L. Carlson (Eds.), Cognitive disability and its challenge to moral philosophy. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 351–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00263.x/pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Roscam Abbing, H. D. C. (2009, December). Kiezen en delen; rapport van de commissie Keuzen in de zorg (Commissie-Dunning). https://www.ntvg.nl/artikelen/kiezen-en-delen-rapportvan-de-commissie-keuzen-de-zorg-commissie-dunning. Retrieved 20 November 2017.
- Salvador-Carulla, L., Reed, G. M., Vaez-Azizi, L. M., Cooper, S. A., Martinez-Leal, R., Bertelli, M., & Saxena, S. (2011). Intellectual developmental disorders: Towards a new name, definition and framework for “mental retardation/intellectual disability” in ICD-11. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 10(3), 175–180.Google Scholar
- Stein, M. S. (2009). Nussbaum: A utilitarian critique. Boston College Law Review, 50(2), 489–531.Google Scholar
- United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of people with disabilities. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
- UNESCO (United Nation’s Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). (2005). Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. UNESCO. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
- United Nations. (2015). World population ageing. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
- Wasserman, D., Asch, A., Blustein, J., & Putnam, D. (2016). Disability: Definitions, models, experience. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/disability/. Accessed 21 November 2017.
- WHO. (2016). Dementia fact sheet. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs362/en/. Accessed 8 December 2016.
- World Health Organisation. (2016). WHO Assistive Health Technology (AHT). WHO. http://www.who.int/phi/implementation/assistive_technology/en/. Accessed 17 June 2016.