Should we say "functional diversity" to refer to "disability"?
A critique of the new postulates of political correctness around disability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/2184-9781_1_5Keywords:
Disability, disease, political correctness, medical model, social model, functional diversity, human rights, bioethics, paternalism, discriminationAbstract
This article addresses "political correctness" (PC) regarding the rights of people with disabilities and specifically the state of the question in Spain. First, we focus on the expression itself and clarify what is understood by PC. This implies reviewing, albeit briefly, the main conceptual and ideological framework PC is grounded in. Second, we describe the new conceptualisation of disability given by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, tasked with ensuring compliance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In Spain, this Convention is about to give rise to substantial legislative reforms in civil and procedural matters, leading to a turnaround in the way the matter has been traditionally treated. Thirdly, we expose a critique of the demands to turn "functional diversity" into the sole politically correct expression to refer to the condition of people with disabilities. To finish, I come back to the question of PC and present my position on the effects of this doctrine on the prevention of discrimination against marginalised groups.
Downloads
References
Alemany, M. (2020). Representación y derechos de las personas con discapacidad mental y/o intelectual, Práctica de Tribunales, 145, 1-17.
Álvarez Ortega, M. (2010). Repercusiones jurídico-políticas de la interdicción lingüística: tabú, censura y corrección política. Estudios de Deusto, 58(2), 323-341.
Atienza, M. (2016). Dignidad humana y derechos de las personas con discapacidad. Revista Ius et Véritas, 53, Diciembre.
Ayim, M. (1998). Just How Correct is Political Correctness? A Critique of the Opposition’s Arguments. Argumentation, 12, 445-480.
Braddock D.L., Parish, S.L. (2001) An Institutional History of Disability. In: Albrecht G., Seelman, K.D., Bury, M. (Eds.) The Handbook of Disability Studies. Sage, Thousand oaks, pp. 11-68.
Bunge, M. (2009). ¿Qué es filosofar científicamente?. Universidad Garcilaso de la Vega.
Bunge, M. (2017). Filosofía para médicos. Gedisa.
Capella, J.R. (2005). La globalización: ante una encrucijada político-jurídica. Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez, 39, 13-24.
Casas Gómez, M. (1996). El poder mágico de la palabra. Trivium, 8, 29-52.
Chadwick, R. (2017). Normality as Convention and as Scientific Fact. In: Schramme, T., Edwards, S. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine. Springer.
Cortina, A. (1977). Ética de las profesiones. In AA. VV. Ética y legislación en enfermería McGraw-Hill Interamericana.
Culver, Ch. M. & Gert., B. (1982). Philosophy in Medicine (Conceptual and Ethical Issues in Medicine and Psychiatry). Oxford University Press.
D’Souza, D. (1991). Iliberal Education. The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc.
Dupré, J (1998). Normal People. Soc Res, 65 (2), pp. 221-248.
De Lora, P. (2019). Lo sexual es político (y jurídico). Alianza Editorial.
Edwards, S. (2017). Disability as Medical and as Social Category. In: Schramme, T., Edwards, S. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine. Springer.
Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to Others. The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Ferrajoli, L. (2006). Criminalidad y globalización. Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, 115, enero-abril, 301-316.
Freidson, E. (1978). La profesión médica. Ediciones Península.
Garzón Valdés, E. (1989). Representación y democracia. Doxa. Cuadernos de filosofía del Derecho, 6, 143-164.
Garzón Valdés, E. (1993). “No pongas tus sucias manos sobre Mozart”. Algunas consideraciones sobre el concepto de tolerancia. In: Garzón Valdés, E.: Derecho, ética y política. Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.
Gil, L. (1969). Therapeia. La medicina popular en el mundo clásico. Ediciones Guadarrama.
Gracia, D. (2008). Fundamentos de bioética. Triacastela.
Kant, I. (1999). On the common saying: this may be correct in theory but it is not of use in practice. In: En defensa de la Ilustración. pp. 241-289.
Laín Entralgo, P. (1981). La medicina actual. Dossat.
Lifante V. (2018). Representación y responsabilidad. Fontamara.
Nino, C. S. (1989). Ética y derechos humanos. Ariel.
Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. MacMillan.
Palacios, A. y Romañach, J. (2008). El modelo de la diversidad: una nueva visión de la bioética desde la perspectiva de las personas con diversidad funcional (discapacidad). Intersticios. Revista Sociológica de Pensamiento Crítico, vol.2 (2), pp. 37-47.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. The Free Press of Glencoe.
Pinker, S. (2012). Los ángeles que llevamos dentro. Paidós.
Pitkin, H. F. (1985). El concepto de representación. Centro de estudios constitucionales.
Riese, W. (1953). The Conception of Disease. Ist History, its versions and its nature. Philosophical Library.
Sartori, G. (1988). Homo Videns. La sociedad teledirigida, Taurus.
Schramme, Th., Edwards, E. (2017). Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine, Springer.
Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited. Routledge.
Vázquez, V. (2010). Libertad de expresión y religión en la cultura liberal: de la moralidad cristiana al miedo postsecular. Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, 146 (mayo-agosto).
Wilson, J. (1995). The Myth of Political Correctness. Duke University Press.
World Health Organization (WHO) (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. Geneve, WHO.