Editorial

Citation

McGill, P. and Bradshaw, J. (2016), "Editorial", Tizard Learning Disability Review, Vol. 21 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLDR-10-2015-0041

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Tizard Learning Disability Review, Volume 21, Issue 1.

The social model “says that disability is caused by the way society is organised, rather than by a person’s impairment or difference. It looks at ways of removing barriers that restrict life choices for disabled people. When barriers are removed, disabled people can be independent and equal in society, with choice and control over their own lives”[1]. It has often proved rather difficult to apply the social model to intellectual disability. The “impairment or difference” experienced by an individual with severe intellectual disabilities is so great that it is hard to imagine, no matter how society is organised, that the individual might not be disabled by their impairment. This, whether correct or not, has the unfortunate effect of constraining our imagination. The papers and commentaries in the current issue show how relevant the social model is to an understanding of learning disabled peoples’ experiences.

Ian Hood first illustrates some of the barriers that are put in the way of people with intellectual disabilities making political choices at the ballot box. He (as does Robert Holland in his commentary) goes on to show how some of these barriers can be removed. Unsurprisingly, presenting information about politics in more accessible ways, engaging people more actively and considering how barriers arise (accidentally or deliberately) throughout the whole “system” of civic participation turn out to be key. It is in the nature of the kind of democratic system we have in the UK and many other parts of the world that those who vote the “loudest” tend to be heard most by the resultant governments. In an age of increasingly tight budgets, getting out the learning disabled vote may not just be a matter of inclusion in civic society but a vitally important way of preserving and improving the supports people need.

Some of the most important choices we make relate to our health. In her paper, Clare Mander shows both how far we have come and how far we still have to go with respect to the equality of health provision for people with learning disabilities. There is now a much wider range of more accessible information available; 20 years ago, most of this did not exist. But having the information is not always enough and many people will need further help to understand the choices facing them. Through examples arising from her research, Mander shows very clearly how health practitioners use accessible information as a guide to facilitate the health choices of people with intellectual disabilities. This turns out to be rather problematic, with lots of ways in which the process can break down, the disabled person either clearly not understanding the issues (sometimes because of the ways in which the accessible information has been designed or is delivered) or appearing to be led down the route of “what is best for them”. Kim Hartley Kean, in her commentary, considers the broader relevance of this theme, how we can create a society in which the communication process, not just at individual level but also including “mass communication” processes, is truly inclusive.

Angela Olsen and Catherine Carter describe how we have often failed to meet the needs of women with learning disabilities who have been raped. In a manner entirely consistent with the social model, they work through a process of co-production to identify the barriers that have prevented needs being met and, then, to do something about them. Here, the focus returns to accessible information and, as McCarthy reinforces in her commentary, this is a vital element in any serious attempt to help people with intellectual disabilities gain more choice and control in their lives. At the same time, also a recurring theme throughout the issue, Olsen, Carter and McCarthy emphasise that accessible information is not enough, it is also a matter of “the way society is organised” and, more to the point, changing it.

Peter McGill and Jill Bradshaw

Note

1. Definition downloaded from Scope website on 22 October 2015: www.scope.org.uk/about-us/our-brand/social-model-of-disability