Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Dismantling the disability/handicap distinction

S D Edwards1

  • 1Centre for Philosophy and Health Care, University of Wales Swansea, U.K.

The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
|March 21, 1998
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The Ashley treatment: a step too far, or not far enough?

Journal of medical ethics·2008
Same author

The impairment/disability distinction: a response to Shakespeare.

Journal of medical ethics·2007
Same author

Suitability of electrosurgical analysers for routine maintenance testing of electrosurgery units - a technical note.

Journal of medical engineering & technology·2007
Same author

Moral perspectives on the prevention of suicide in mental health settings.

Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing·2006
Same author

Transhumanism, medical technology and slippery slopes.

Journal of medical ethics·2006
Same author

Ethical concerns regarding guidelines for the conduct of clinical research on children.

Journal of medical ethics·2005

This study critiques the World Health Organization (WHO) and Nordenfelt's distinctions between disability and handicap, finding them theoretically weak. Both concepts, it argues, stem from external causes, challenging individual-focused disablement models.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Sociology
  • Disability Studies
  • Philosophy of Medicine

Background:

  • The World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a distinction between impairment, disability, and handicap in its 1980 publication.
  • Subsequent academic work, including Nordenfelt's, has attempted to refine or defend this distinction.
  • Critiques suggest that existing models inadequately capture the complexities of disablement.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the theoretical underpinnings of the WHO's distinction between disability and handicap.
  • To analyze Nordenfelt's attempt to preserve this distinction.
  • To propose an alternative perspective on the causes of disability and handicap.

Main Methods:

  • Conceptual analysis of the WHO's International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Critical examination of Nordenfelt's philosophical arguments regarding disability.
  • Theoretical argumentation regarding the external causality of disablement.

    • Main Results:

    • Neither the WHO's nor Nordenfelt's framework successfully maintains a theoretically sound distinction between disability and handicap.
    • Both 'disability' and 'handicap' are argued to originate from external factors, contrary to the WHO's classification.
    • Nordenfelt's concept of 'basic actions' is insufficient to ground the notion of disability.

    Conclusions:

    • The WHO's and Nordenfelt's attempts to distinguish disability and handicap are theoretically flawed.
    • A focus on individual-level descriptions of disablement overlooks significant methodological shortcomings.
    • Disability and handicap are better understood as phenomena with external causes, necessitating a broader societal perspective.