Introduction
Disability oppression and ableism have potential ethical problems that require serious thought and action. Ableism refers to the systematic discrimination and exploitation of disabled people, while disability oppression refers to a specific type of social inequality that restricts the options available to them (Aarons, 2020). This paper aims to examine the Care Ethics perspective on this problem and propose an ethical strategy for resolving it. One current case study will illustrate this point, demonstrating the issue’s complexity and interplay with other forms of oppression and injustice.
Care Ethics and Disability Oppression
The ethical theory known as “Care Ethics” places a premium on caring for others and building meaningful connections when making moral judgments (Aarons, 2020). All people are interdependent and interconnected, and Care Ethics places a premium on the needs, experiences, and perspectives of the most marginalized members of society, such as those with disabilities. Care Ethics provides insightful guidance on treating and valuing people with disabilities in the context of disability oppression and ableism.
Systemic discrimination and ableism lead to numerous forms of economic and social injustice for people with disabilities. Disabled people’s independence and access to opportunities are hampered by many factors, including lack of education, employment, housing, healthcare, and transportation (Goodley, 2014). Furthermore, people who are disabled are frequently excluded from mainstream society, which can lead to feelings of alienation, depression, and anxiety. Disabled people’s rights and dignity are being violated, but society suffers because of the effects of these injustices on equality and diversity.
Case Study: Inequity in Disability Care Services – The Case of Padres Buscando el Cambio and the Lack of Support for Disabled Children in Latino Families
When developing and implementing solutions to the issue of inequality in disability care services, it is crucial to prioritize the perspectives and lived experiences of people with disabilities, particularly those from underrepresented groups. The root causes of the problems, such as ableism, systemic oppression, and a lack of funding, must also be addressed to make lasting changes.
Background
In the case study, Latinx families of Padres Buscando el Cambio sued the California Department of Developmental Services and Harbor Regional Center to protect the interest of Children and young adults with developmental disabilities seeking increased access to existing support services (Disability Rights California, 2021). The regional center provides respite care, one-on-one aides, in-home support, day programs for those with autism and cerebral palsy. Schools and daycares closure during the pandemic had left these kids and their families unsupported. For Latinx families, the inequitable distribution of regional center services became intolerable. Padres Buscando el Cambio parents say Harbor Regional Center has not done enough to meet their kids’ needs for too long.
Ethical Concerns
The case study raises serious ethical concerns about discrimination, injustice, and the exploitation of disabled people.
Justice and Inequity
The lawsuit draws attention to the need for justice and equality for people with disabilities (Disability Rights California, 2021). Due to discrimination in gaining access to regional center services during the pandemic, a lawsuit was filed. The lawsuit brings up moral questions about justice and equity for people with disabilities, and it highlights the importance of ensuring that all people have access to services on an equal basis.
Systemic Harm
Additionally, the case highlights the pervasive inequality in the treatment of people who are disabled. Many families of those kids and young adults feel their kids’ needs have not been met for far too long (Mouchaers et al., 2022). Systemic harm was done to these people because they could not access the services at the regional center. This situation exemplifies the importance of removing institutional obstacles that impede disabled people’s access to necessary services and resources.
Bias
It is also important to note that this case study raises the issue of discrimination against people who are disabled. When disabled people are denied service at community hubs, they become targets of prejudice (Sharma & Mehra, 2020). It is clear from this case that discrimination against people with disabilities is prevalent and they are vulnerable to bias. This is the reason why all stakeholders must collaborate to ensure that all necessary services and accommodations are available to them.
Proposal: Prioritizing the Needs and Perspectives of Disabled Individuals
It is crucial to prioritize the needs of the most marginalized members of the disabled community and to do everything possible to improve their lives (Sharma & Mehra, 2020). Those marginalized, such as the poor, people of color, non-English speakers, and people with multiple disabilities, are disproportionately impacted by this issue. Getting the help they need can be difficult, and their needs are sometimes disregarded. Considering their perspectives and lived experiences is crucial to finding morally acceptable solutions to this issue. This includes applying them in decision-making, being attentive to their concerns and needs, and developing services and programs that are intuitive and respectful to their values. It also necessitates removing the institutional obstacles that prevent these people from receiving care.
Disability is a marginalized identity, and it is crucial to acknowledge how it intersects with other identities, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status (Mouchaers et al., 2022). These identities often overlap and compound to create additional hurdles for some people. By prioritizing the perspectives and experiences of the most marginalized members of the disabled community, we can ensure that our solutions are equitable, just, and inclusive of everyone. This method helps the most vulnerable in our society right away and makes our society more equitable and just overall.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Care Ethics provides a unique vantage point to examine the roots of economic and social injustice in the oppression of people with disabilities and ableism. Recognizing the interconnectedness of disability oppression and other forms of injustice and giving disabled people’s needs and perspectives priority is an ethical approach to addressing this problem. Including disabled people and their families in policymaking and decision-making is crucial, as is acknowledging their varied needs and preferences. A multifaceted strategy is required, one that not only invests in the training and education of those who provide care to people with disabilities but also addresses the underlying causes of economic and social inequality. It is crucial to acknowledge that people with disabilities are valuable members of society who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Care Ethics as a framework for addressing ableism and other oppression against people with disabilities can help us build a more inclusive and just society where everyone’s contributions are recognized and appreciated.
References
Aarons, D. E. (2020). The disability-rights perspective within the bioethics agenda. Nursing Ethics, 27(4), 1056–1065. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733020906599
Disability Rights California. (2021, November 8). Padres Buscando el Cambio. https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/cases/pbc-v-hrc
Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. Routledge
Mouchaers, I., Verbeek, H., Kempen, G. I. J. M., Van Haastregt, J. C. M., Vlaeyen, E., Goderis, G., & Metzelthin, S. F. (2022). The concept of disability and its causal mechanisms in older people over time from a theoretical perspective: a literature review. European Journal of Ageing, 19(3), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-021-00668-w
Sharma, S., & Mehra, S. (2020). Prioritizing the needs of young people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence-based summary. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 9(2), 470. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1020_19
write