Related to that is the realization that your disability may be regarded as a medical condition, and that is how many people regard it, but it is also quite possible to understand disability as a mis-fit between the individual and the environment. This is the idea that disability is a social construct; we decide which limitations are disabilities and which are not. As an example, many people who wear eyeglasses have a fairly significant disability or limitation without the glasses. (I need reading glasses, and I’m fairly visually impaired without them in certain environments.) Yet, a person who wears glasses is not regarded as disabled. Why not? It’s purely a social construct. From my point of view, in a totally wheelchair accessible environment, how is a person who uses a wheelchair disabled? What is it that they can’t do? Walk, sure. But all of us choose to get from one place to another in vehicles. If my vehicle is a wheelchair, why is that different from a car? Different enough to set me apart from people who walk. One can argue the fine points of this explanation; but I offer it as an explanation of the way that many people with disabilities regard this question. I don’t regard my identity as medically based. So, I’m not going to put much mental energy in seeking a cure.

And, most “cures” are not neutral. There are side effects, possibilities of unsuccessful surgeries, requirements for ongoing treatment or drugs, etc. So, there are usually trade-off’s to consider, and if my life is fine for me, why would I want to go back to the world of doctors, hospitals and loss of personal autonomy for an existence that can’t be exactly predicted? So for now, the answer is “no thanks” to the idea of a cure.

Just a short note on the question of why liberals don’t “get it”. I think most of us in the disability activist community are by political pre-disposition liberal ourselves. It isn’t whether most liberals do or don’t get it, so much as the disappointment we feel when they don’t. We don’t expect conservatives to “get it”, so we’re not as affected when they don’t. (And surprised when they do.) We have higher expectations of liberals and progressives.

Is access for people with disabilities a civil right? Access is THE civil right for all people. If you can’t get in– you can’t participate. You can’t vote. You can’t buy. You can’t be employed. Whether you are barred by a sign, by guys with billy clubs or by three steps leading to the entrance of a bank, if you can’t get in– you are not a part of the community. Going around back is not acceptable– because then your right to be there is less than the folks who come in the front door.

Back about 15 years ago, there was a law that forced businesses to have fire sprinklers. There were thousands of laments from the business community– we’ll go broke– it will destroy historic buildings– the lamentations were long and endless. And guess what? The buildings were fitted with sprinklers. It’s been a long time since I’ve heard any complaint about fire sprinkler requirements– it’s simply the cost of doing business, everyone knows it and I haven’t heard of a huge army of fire sprinkler avoiders. If it costs money to provide fire sprinklers in the unlikely event of a fire, should we not be looking to provide access in the likely event that someone with a disability may want to use a business that is open to the public? That they may want to go eat at a restaurant with their sweetheart without having to go through an inevitably stinking freight elevator? It is because many people without disabilities do not believe that people with disabilities have actual lives– that people with disabilities might want to impress a girl with dinner and a movie– or might want to paint their face and cheer for some football team– or might want to support their community by shopping at a local store instead of WalMart–or go to a concert–or visit a legislator or any thousand other things in the community– it is because people without disabilities cannot imagine a different perspective where wheelchairs are as natural as breath– or where breath from a respirator is as natural as walking– and there is still that niggle supported by society and the medical model of providing services that people with disabilities would be better off dead.

Of course physician-assisted suicide naturally follows– how much worth do we put on the lives of people with disabilities when there seems to be this great confusion about the worth of people with disabilities and their right to use businesses in the same manner as anyone else? And there is an emphasis on “dignity” that is defined as needing help going to the bathroom? And this culture that wants to shut people with disabilities up in institutions which both shut them up (literally and figuratively) and close them out? When Krevorkian can kill dozens of people with the authorities turning a blind eye? When people with disabilities have a two-thirds unemployment rate and are three times as likely as the general population to live in poverty? When they have to jump through hoops to get assistive technology or community services? When people with disabilities are valued and get what they need and health care systems are not driven by dollars, then we can re-visit Physician-Assited Suicide. I’m not thinking that will be anytime soon…

If the freight elevator requires an operator, or someone with a key to unlock it, then a person in a wheelchair is going to be inconvenienced, at a bare minimum, by the wait. If the entrance to the freight elevator is an external one, then he or she may wind up waiting in the rain. If the person behind the counter can’t leave immediately to unlock the door, or can’t find a key, then he or she may wind up waiting in the rain for a long time.

And it’s also worth noting that the ADA only requires those alterations to existing structures that are “readily achievable,” a term defined within the law as meaning “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.”

It’s called “closed captioning,” and most TV programs already have it.

The major problem with making places disabled-friendly is that a lot of older buildings just cannot be changed that way without compromising the structure and / or spending incredible amounts of money. With other groups it is simply a question of preventing bans (at most, women’s toilets had to be added). With disabled people, major structural alterations may be needed.

A progressive bookstore owner provides a ramp to a locked entrance and offers a doorbell; he is offended when local activists protest the segregated treatment.

I have every sympathy for disabled people and agree that efforts must be stepped up to give them the best chances possible. But to frame it in terms of them having rights to everything the fully abled can do seems troublesome. Cruel as it is, nature has dealt a blow. Society should do its best to temper the blow, but it cannot be blamed for every consequence of it.

By the way, what happened to the term “handicapped”? It’s odd to me that now the term “disabled” (to be incapable of something) is preferred over “handicapped” (to be sufficiently able so as to overcome a significant obstacle). I’ve heard the complaint that “handicapped” replaced “cripple”, but then acquired the same negative connotations as “cripple” had had and thus was in turn discarded. That would suggest that the connotations had some real basis and will eventually attach to “disabled” and yet another term will be needed.