Defining disability and the role of the disability and the medical communities
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20142731 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Julia Mosquera (0000-0001-8708-6326, Institute for Futures Studies (IFFS), Philosophy Stockholm Sweden, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 88 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 653-665 |
| Publication date | 2022-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Theoria (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0040-5825 • E-ISSN: 1755-2567 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/theo.12388 |
| OpenAlex | W4224860696 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 17 |
Definitions of disability are useful for different purposes and carry normative significance. However, defining disability has proven a difficult task. Communities with different theoretical backgrounds and practical aims disagree about how to define disability. Recently, Chong‐Ming Lim (2018) has attempted to define disability in a manner accommodating of the different interests and theoretical commitments of the disability and the medical communities. His account aims at broadening Elizabeth Barnes' (2016) definition of disability, which is not sufficiently inclusive of the interests of the medical community and leaves out cases other than physical disabilities. Under the most plausible interpretation of his account, however, the account becomes more restrictive than that of Barnes. In this paper, I propose instead two kinds of accounts: a disjunctive one based on a reinterpretation of Lim's, and a cluster concept account of disability. Both accounts can avoid the restrictiveness problem faced by Lim's and Barnes' original accounts
Disability studies · Epistemology · Inclusion (mineral) · Interpretation (philosophy) · Linguistics · Medical model of disability · Normative · Psychiatry · Reinterpretation · Restrictiveness · Sociology · Computer Science · Disability Rights and Representation · Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare · Ethics in medical practice · Gender Studies · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology
Ethics
Disability Rights and Wrongs
The Capacity Contract
The Oxford Handbook of Population Ethics
The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Disability
The Minority Body
Voiceless subjects? Research ethics and persons with profound intellectual disabilities
Woman as a Politically Significant Term
The politics of self-advocacy and people with learning difficulties
Intentionality
Speech Acts
| Highly cited | No |
|---|