Self-Advocacy

The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 predates both the Rehabilitation Act, as we know it today, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Most people believe this legislation was passed to remove access barriers to the physically impaired to level the playing field, so to speak. Physical obstacles are the tangible evidence when discrimination against the disabled occurs. We can see the flight of steps, lack of ramps, or narrow doorways that deny entry to the working world. This fight you can sink your teeth into without worrying about someone disputing your claim to equal access.

With the explosion of disability rights groups and associations, there is going to be conflict within this massive culture. Which disability deserves the most attention? Should each group fend for itself, or should there be a United Nations of Disability? With the numbers of the newly disabled climbing everyday, the time has come to ask some important questions about disability advocacy and the rights of the individual.

The physically disabled claim their fight is for all people. One day, every human being will be physically disabled in his or her lifetime. The need for universal design and access are important to all. I must agree, not only because I am a wheelchair user, but also because it is true. Mental disability does not equal physical disability. If you do not have a physical disability, a flight of stairs, a hill, or a pile of mud is not going to stop you from getting in or out. A mental disability and the issues surrounding it are different from those surrounding people who cannot get in because of physical barriers. Unless an early death claims you, becoming physically disabled is a certainty. Simple as that. Or is it?

What about mental barriers? Those with developmental disabilities, such as autism, face a different kind of discrimination, one that is based in fear and old wives tales. The multitudes of diagnoses are much harder to prove, not only to a potential employer, but also to family and friends. Mental illnesses and the like still carry the stigma of loss of control. In the old days, autism was labeled “pathologically withdrawn”, among others. After decades of research and discovery, horrifying names such as that have been replaced with more appropriate dialog. Nevertheless, the fear of mental disability remains, as the human mind is still a vast frontier to most scientists looking for reasons why mental disabilities occur, and how to eradicate them.

The mental disability camp is fighting the invisible. Nothing is more frustrating than shadowboxing with the enemy. Mental handicaps are sometimes insidious, hidden deep within the mind, lurking for a crisis to expose a weakness that may not be controlled or cured. Compounding the fight is the tragedy of mis-diagnosis. Many children and adults are labeled with the wrong disease or abnormality routinely, thus delaying proper treatment, which may result in behavior that lands the individual in institutions or jail. Then the process of determining the true problem is further muddled by the legal system that swings between excuses and accountability. It is difficult to defend someone who has perpetrated a violent crime and suddenly has a medical defense. Society has little compassion for those who are falsely or incorrectly diagnosed, and commit crimes that result in great bodily harm or death.

When the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law, it expanded the previous legislation to include mental disabilities. This inclusion has allowed more people employment, medical treatment, and education, who would otherwise be denied. But it also opened the doors to many who distort the original intent of the law to line the pockets of lawyers and charlatans. This struggle for equality has become more complex as new diseases are identified, and more people take advantage of the Americans with Disabilities Act somewhat broad definitions of disability. How far should the laws be stretched? Or is the current trend to further define the Americans with Disabilities Act justifiable? Each one has it’s merits, but to make decisions on a case-by-case basis does a disservice to those who fought so hard to have the original legislation made into law.