In discussing the topic of disabilities, a prevailing assumption remains—that disabled individuals need to be "fixed" to conform to societal norms, which are the perceived informal rules defining acceptable and appropriate actions. This assumption is deeply rooted in ableism, a form of discrimination and prejudice against individuals with disabilities. Moreover, the idea that disabled individuals need to be “fixed” raises significant ethical and moral concerns. It is crucial to stress the importance of accepting disability as an aspect of human diversity and challenge the understanding of diversity, inclusion, and the inherent worth of individuals. This paper argues that the idea of “fixing” disabilities is false by evaluating the medical model and introducing the social model as a supplement.
“Fixing” as a Helpful Approach
Disability is “any condition of the body or mind (impairment) that makes it more difficult for the person with the condition to do certain activities (activity limitation) and interact with the world around them (participation restrictions).” Disabilities can affect people’s ways of living, including school, work, travel, communication, etc. These issues could be temporary, but they also could be permanent in nature. The assumption that disabled people need to be fixed views disability as a flaw that needs to be corrected and normalized, which often leads to forced medical approaches. The idea of treating disabilities with medical treatment, such as surgery, can be traced back to the medical model. The medical model of disability typically relies on the notion of "fixing" disabilities in favor of viewing them as a medical condition that requires treatment or intervention. From this perspective, disabilities are often seen as individual deficits or impairments that need to be diagnosed, treated, or managed by medical professionals. Regarding disability as an inherently pathological issue, the goal of the medical model is to correct the impaired and dysfunctioned system and normalize it as much as possible. This model focuses primarily on physical, mental, and sensory aspects of disability, emphasizing the internal factors and often overlooking the externally broader social, cultural, and environmental factors that contribute to disablement.
Taking the medical model could be constructive and helpful in some cases, especially in cases where disabled conditions can be reversed. Research has shown the effectiveness of early intervention for disability, where various therapies can address developmental areas differently. A thorough aetiological diagnosis can also help disabled people to investigate the nature and cause of their health condition, preventing a delay in seeking necessary treatment and providing guidance for future operations. In extreme cases where disabled people are facing life-threatening urgencies, medical intervention can also save the lives of those patients lacking capacity. In fact, by adopting necessary medical treatment and intervention, although some conditions are not reversible, the worst-case scenario can be prevented at an early stage.
Unintended Consequences, Both Physically and Culturally
Aside from all the legitimate justification for the medical model, it is essential to recognize that efforts to fix disability through medical interventions may have unintended consequences. Medical procedures carry risks, and the outcomes may not always meet expectations. For example, according to a news report from The U.S. SUN, a disabled patient has described the torturous moment when he lay awake during a “very uncomfortable” operation after his anesthetic didn't work. The patient is now campaigning for doctors who are careless and inexperienced with disabled patients. The unpredictability of surgery adds too much risk to medical intervention. Therefore, fixing disability through medical intervention is not the most desirable approach.
Besides the physically unintended consequences resulting from medical interventions, fixing disabilities can cause harmful stereotypes surrounding disability. It reinforces the notion that disability is something to be ashamed of or hidden rather than valued as a part of human diversity. Disability History Museum provides an example of harmful stereotypes focusing on disability: “A disability is a sickness, something to be fixed, an abnormality to be corrected or cured. Tragic disabilities are those with no possibility of cure, or where attempts at cure fail.” By making an explicit connection between disabilities and the sickness that needs to be “fixed,” such condemnation further abuses individuals with disabilities, excluding them from society.
A Violation of Individual’s Autonomy
Although the medical model values “fixing” disability as their primary approach, it disrespects the equal rights of individuals and violates personal autonomy—such an intention injures individuals’ autonomy and causes harm to one’s inherent dignity and rights.
The principle of autonomy is defined as self-directing freedom, especially moral independence. Personal autonomy indicates that it “does not specify any particular values or principles that must be endorsed by the autonomous agent, and substantive accounts which specify some particular value or values that must be included within autonomous decision-making.” The inherently subjective nature of personal autonomy emphasizes that individuals have the right to make choices based on their own distinctive values, beliefs, and preferences. It draws attention to the significance of allowing individuals to have the freedom to decide their lives according to their own internal beliefs rather than forcing external norms or values upon them.
Disabled individuals enjoy the same fundamental human rights as every individual. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, announced by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, clearly narrates the inherent dignity and equal rights of all human beings without distinction of any kind: “All the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Since autonomy guarantees an individual's right to self-determination and the freedom to make decisions about their own body and life—no matter what physical condition one is in, forcing involvement focused on fixing disabilities thus disregards this fundamental principle by adding societal norms onto disabled individuals and undermining their autonomy. Therefore, any effort to "fix" disabilities without the informed consent of the individual violates their basic human rights, as well as their physical integrity and privacy.
A Violation of Cultural Autonomy
Moreover, autonomy includes not only one’s physical autonomy but also one’s personal identity and cultural autonomy. Many disabled individuals find support and strength in their unique experiences and join communities around their disabilities. For instance, The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) promotes rights for the disabled population. By “promoting equal opportunity, economic power, independent living, and political participation,” AAPD strives to create a disabled community that protects, supports, empowers, and cares for disabled people across the United States. Disability-centered communities offer a space where disabled individuals can connect with others with shared experiences. These communities also engage in actions such as promoting disability rights, aiming to create an inclusive environment where every individual is welcomed regardless of their abilities. These communities are centered around a core belief that disability is not a mistake to be corrected but an internal aspect of identity, attempting to create a disabled-friendly culture for people with disabilities.
Such a disabled-centered culture regards disability as a natural part of diversity, which is not different from race, gender, sexual orientation, and other inherent identities, rather than an abnormal feature. However, as disability has been understood as an error that needs corrections, the disability culture might be denied in pursuing a non-disabled-centered society. Also, appealing to the same method of “fixing” narrows the definition of disabled people who have multiple identities. A rigid adherence to “fixing” can be interpreted as a denial of the uniqueness of being a disabled person with one’s unique multi-faceted identity. Ignoring these identities in pursuing normalization not only denies the culture altogether but also violates disabled individuals' cultural autonomy, taking away their right to define themselves in their own way.
Society’s Collective Efforts as the Supplement
Compared to the medical model, the social model provides a better solution than “fixing” disabilities. Different from the medical model, the social model of disability provides an ethical framework for understanding disability situations as a result of societal barriers rather than individual problems. According to this model, the challenges and hardships that disabled people experience in their everyday lives do not result from their physical limitations. Rather, it is society’s failure to provide appropriate services and adequate consideration for disabled people, failing to ensure that they are included in societal organization.
Under the social model, the advancement of inclusivity is the key to the ethical and moral argument against fixing disability. Instead of viewing disability as a problem to be fixed, people need to recognize it as a part of the human experience and embrace diversity in all its formations. Embracing disability challenges rigid social norms and creates a more inclusive society—one that confronts social biases and assumptions about the “normal” body.
In response, there are many things that people should focus on to promote a more inclusive community. For example, according to a United Nations World Report on Disability, governments can implement communication campaigns to increase public knowledge and understanding of disability; academic institutions can remove barriers to the recruitment and participation of students and staff; communities can ensure that community environments are accessible for people with disabilities, including schools, recreational areas, and cultural facilities. By promoting a thorough understanding and raising awareness of disabilities, our society as a whole can create a more friendly community where everyone feels included.
In conclusion, the assumption that disabled individuals need to be “fixed” raises ethical concerns and challenges the essence of human diversity, inclusion, and the intrinsic value of disabled individuals. The assumption of “fixing” disabilities was explored based on the theory of the medical model and the social model. Although effective in some cases, the medical model violates fundamental human rights and autonomy, leading to unintended consequences and harmful stereotypes. On the other hand, the social model offers a more ethical framework, ascribing disability not to personal disadvantages but to social hindrance. Including disability as a part of human diversity requires a shift in societal attitudes and practices toward inclusivity.
Bibliography
Baynton, Douglas. “Education: Essay.” disability history museum--Education: Essay: Disability History Museum. Accessed March 30, 2024. https://www.disabilitymuseum.org/dhm/edu/essay.html?id=24.
Buder, Sarah, and Rose Perry. “The Social Model of Disability Explained.” Social Creatures, November 5, 2021. Accessed March 15, 2024. https://www.thesocialcreatures.org/thecreaturetimes/the-social-model-of-disability.
Carlson, David. National Disability Rights Network. Devaluing people with disabilities. Accessed April 1, 2024. https://www.ndrn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Devaluing-People-with-Disabilities.pdf.
“Disability and Health Overview.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 16, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/disability.html#:~:text=A%20disability%20is%20any%20condition,around%20them%20(participation%20restrictions).
Dryden, Jane. “Autonomy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d. Accessed March 15, 2024. https://iep.utm.edu/autonomy/#:~:text=Personal%20autonomy%20is%20the%20capacity,heeded%20within%20a%20political%20context.
“Home.” AAPD, February 12, 2023. Accessed March 15, 2024. https://www.aapd.com/.
Lawson, John. “Disability as a Cultural Identity,” International Studies in Sociology of Education, 11:3 (2001): 203-222. Accessed Mar 20, 2024. DOI: 10.1080/09620210100200076.
Little, Elizabeth. “Patient Was Awake during OP but Couldn’t Scream after Anaesthetic Failed.” The US Sun, December 16, 2020. Accessed March 20, 2024. https://www.the-sun.com/news/1980784/disabled-patient-awake-during-surgery-couldnt-scream/.
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “disabled,” accessed March 25, 2024. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disabled.
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “autonomy,” accessed March 25, 2024. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy.
Olkin, Rhoda. “Conceptualizing Disability: Three Models of Disability.” American Psychological Association. Accessed March 25, 2024. https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psychology-teacher-network/introductory-psychology/disability-models.
Raising Children. “Early intervention: children and teenagers with disability, autism or other additional needs.” Last edited Jan 9, 2023. Accessed Mar 31, 2024. https://raisingchildren.net.au/autism/therapies-services/therapies-interventions/early-intervention.
Rice, David. “Human Rights Model of Disability.” National Institutes of Health, October 1, 2021. Accessed Mar 15, 2024. https://www.edi.nih.gov/blog/communities/human-rights-model-disability.
Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften, Medical treatment and care of people with disabilities (Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS), 2017.
“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed March 25, 2024. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.