Equality and disability symposium

Disability and difference: balancing social and physical constructions

Tom Koch

Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada

The world of disability theory is currently divided between those who insist it reflects a physical fact affecting life quality and those who believe disability is defined by social prejudice. Despite a dialogue spanning bioethical, medical and social scientific literatures the differences between opposing views remains persistent. The result is similar to a figure-ground paradox in which one can see only part of a picture at any moment. This paper attempts to find areas of commonality between the opposing camps, and thus to rearrange the figures of the paradox at a fundamental level. The purpose is first to identify areas in which common ground can be achieved, and secondarily, to clarify the areas in which disagreement continues. While a general and unified theory of physical difference/disability is beyond the scope of this paper the result may advance that general goal.

Key Words: Bioethics • disability • eugenics • paradox • social construction theory

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Cox-White, B., Boxall, S. F. (2008). Redefining Disability: Maleficent, Unjust and Inconsistent. J Med Philos 0: jhn030v1-jhn030 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bridy, A. (2004). Confounding Extremities: Surgery at the Medico-ethical Limits of Self-Modification. J Law Med Ethics 32: 148-158  
• Koch, T (2002). One principle and three fallacies of disability studies. J. Med. Ethics 28: 203-203 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Boyd, K. M (2001). Disability. J. Med. Ethics 27: 361-362 [Full Text]  
• Harris, J. (2001). One principle and three fallacies of disability studies. J. Med. Ethics 27: 383-387 [Abstract] [Full Text]