The Normal Subject

[fourtwenty]

The National Health Service (NHS) develops wheelchairs and crutches in order to help with the mobility of those who require such items.  I noticed that a lot of the equipment issued had labels stating that they were property of the NHS. I found the use of the word property particularly interesting in this situation – As individuals who own properly see the declaration of it as a form of status. Status will usually denote a positive aspect of an individual’s standing in the world.  However, it is often thought to be insulting to describe a person as property. I feel that disabled people regularly become the property of various authorities, but not in a positive sense. As the ‘disabled’ label is a statement which suggests that you need someone or something in order to be able to live your life.

For example, most individuals who work, tend to live a distance away from their workplace that requires some form of transport which will meet their mobility needs. That may be a car or bus etc - which is considered as the norm and in no sense would be labelled as a ‘special need’. However, disabled people who require a wheelchair or car for their mobility needs are described as having a ‘special need’ - To them it is an essential norm.

Why is it that disabled people who cannot walk are informed that they must have a NHS wheelchair or crutches whether it meets their requirements or not?

[fourtwenty]

Continuing from my last post... I believe that mobility for disabled individuals should be a right and the selection of aid should be completely their own choice. A society which pressures those who are unable to walk into using such equipment, not only connotes a message of superiority, but also describes the type of society it is - which is prepared to collude with this type of mistreatment.  This type of thing is strongly suggestive that society renders disabled people as unequal - which in my eyes is totally wrong.     

[Natty]

I think it's interesting that people can only be defined in terms of being normal or not falling into this category, but "abnormality" has many sub-genres, such as disabled/able-bodied, deaf, impaired. Also, these labels are imposed by people who not bound by the definitions.

[katiet27]

I never considered myself disabled until doing the weekly reading for this subject and discovered in terms of Swain and Cameron's piece that they would consider me not able-bodied (I have an early onset form or arthritis controlled well enough by medication that you would not look at me and think I were "abnormal" - I hope!) therefore disabled. 


I wonder if I could use this as grounds for the council to provide me with a blue badge?!!  I doubt it very much.

[sweetgirl]

we live in a world of norms, where we are constantly rancking our intelligence on our cholesterol level, our weight and so on, docters average weight to see our average weight if it is less or more, every where we are seen as abormal or normal, even at schools the children are checked to see if they are above average in terms of intelligence .