Left Brain Right Brain

The American Senate voted for the Convention on theRights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD, just not by enough of a margin to pass it. The vote was 61 to 34 with 3 abstentions.

Rick Santorum was a force against the Convention. He is quoted in a number of places as stating:

“If it weren’t for you, the U.S. Senate wouldn’t have defeated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Your petition signatures (over 20,000!), phone calls, emails and tweets about CRPD’s flaws made the difference.”

When I read such a statement, I am saddened that I didn’t do more to get out the word to voice support. Not that this site would have made the difference, but I wish I had done more.

The Convention was rejected by groups who felt the U.S. should not cede sovereignty over these decisions. A major point is this: the U.S. doesn’t really respond to the U.N. anyway. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but the major force behind enforcing the will of the U.N. is the U.S.. Also, if we as a people are already following the rules set forth in the Convention, we are not going to cede sovereignty to anyone, right? But, still, the specter of “the UN will tell the US how to treat their disabled children” was raised.

On CNN’s Anderson Cooper show, this point was discussed, including this rather strong statement to the contrary by John Kerry:

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Well, I have great respect for both Rick and his wife, Karen, and their daughter and their family. He’s a strong family man. But he either simply hasn’t read the treaty or doesn’t understand it or he was just not factual in what he said, because the United Nations has absolutely zero, zero, I mean, zero ability to order or to tell or to even — I mean, they can suggest, but they have no legal capacity to tell the United States to do anything under this treaty. Nothing.

How about the other side of the discussion? In what areas might we as a people not agree with what is in the Convention? Health care. You read that correctly, health care. The country that spends the most on health care in the world is worried that the UN would impose their rule on us in health care of the disabled.

RICK SANTORUM (R), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: This is a direct assault on us and our family to hand over to the state the ability to make medical determinations and see what is in the best interest of the child and not look at the wonderful gift that every child is.

I see a familiar theme here. The disabled are all children. Moving on, one might ask, “in what way would health care be an issue?” Here is the section of the CRPD on health care:

States Parties recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities to health services that are gender-sensitive, including health-related rehabilitation. In particular, States Parties shall:

a.Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes;
b.Provide those health services needed by persons with disabilities specifically because of their disabilities, including early identification and intervention as appropriate, and services designed to minimize and prevent further disabilities, including among children and older persons;
c.Provide these health services as close as possible to people’s own communities, including in rural areas;
d.Require health professionals to provide care of the same quality to persons with disabilities as to others, including on the basis of free and informed consent by, inter alia, raising awareness of the human rights, dignity, autonomy and needs of persons with disabilities through training and the promulgation of ethical standards for public and private health care;
e.Prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provision of health insurance, and life insurance where such insurance is permitted by national law, which shall be provided in a fair and reasonable manner;
f.Prevent discriminatory denial of health care or health services or food and fluids on the basis of disability.

In case you are wondering what in that raised concerns, it’s this phrase: “including in the area of sexual and reproductive health”. Yes. The U.S. didn’t ratify the Convention because some groups are concerned that it includes right to birth control, including abortions.

But that’s not all. By putting “population-based public health programmes” adjacent to that statement, the door was opened for this sort of fear mongering:

Bradley Mattes, president of the International Right to Life Federation, stated, “This is a misleading measure in that it does nothing to protect life. It is disguised as a way to ‘help’ the disabled. Instead it intentionally sacrifices the most vulnerable – the disabled and the unborn – all in the name of population control.”

Yes, “population based public health programs” become “population control”. In case you are wondering, here are a few definitions of “population-based” in regards to health care, including:

Population-based care involves a new way of seeing the masses of individuals seeking health care. It is a way of looking at patients not just as individuals but as members of groups with shared health care needs. This approach does not detract from individuality but rather adds another dimension, as individuals benefit from the guidelines developed for the populations to which they belong.

No, it is not population control. “Population-based care” isn’t a scary thing.

There is another area where the way the U.S. acts today might be called into question on the issue of health care: “Prevent discriminatory denial of health care or health services or food and fluids on the basis of disability.” There have been a few high profile cases in recent times where individuals were denied transplants due to disability.

In the end, this is a sad day for the U.S.. We have shown the world that we would rather not open ourselves up to criticism. Yes, criticism. That’s the most that could come out of the CRPD from members of the U.N., criticism. Which we would veto. We would rather not face criticism than provide leadership in the world and give ourselves leverage to help enact real change in other countries. If another country abuses its disabled citizens, what are we going to say? “Hey, you aren’t respecting the rights of your disabled citizens.” Yeah. That will carry a lot of weight.

—
By Matt Carey

Disability Scoop is reporting: Senate Rejects UN Disability Treaty. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has been rejected:

Despite strong support from disability advocacy groups, Republican opposition led the U.S. Senate to reject an international disability rights treaty on Tuesday.

In a vote that fell almost entirely along party lines, supporters were unable to secure the two-thirds majority of senators needed to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

More at Disability Scoop.

—
By Matt Carey

A story out of Maine (USA) brings up an important discussion about what are the rights of a disabled student to have his/her day communicated completely to his/her parents. If an individual (student in this case, but one can easily generalize to adults in a non-school setting) are unable to effectively communicate what happens to them during the day, what do those who advocate with/for those individuals have as a means to fully learn about what happens?

It’s a cumbersome point, I know, but consider this news story: Topsham parents seek permission to record nonverbal son’s school day

The parents want to make an audio recording of the student’s day. The student is non-verbal and, apparently, unable to otherwise effectively communicate the events of the day. A non-disabled student can report back to family, “I’ve been bullied” or “I was placed alone in a room for an hour”.

The parents of a 13-year-old Mt. Ararat Middle School student who has autism and intellectual disabilities are challenging the school district’s decision to block them from sending their son to school with an audio recording device.

The school district is fighting the parents’ proposal, saying it’s not conducive to providing educational services and poses a threat to the privacy of other students and school staff.

At what point are the nonverbal student’s rights so infringed that the school must make an accommodation?

Recall a recent story where a parent sent an audio recorder with his son. (I’ll add the link soon). He found that his son was being ignored and worse by staff.

(Trigger alert): A story out of Bakersfield, California, makes the point of the need for information about a disabled student’s day. This one isn’t specific to autism or non-verbal ability, but does involve a 16 year old

Parents of alleged assault victim take KHSD to court

The girl was a 16-year-old 10th-grader at the time of the alleged Oct. 15, 2009, incident but had the intellectual capacity of a 4-year-old, according to a civil complaint filed in September 2010.

The girl was attacked at about 11 a.m., and afterward the school allowed her to finish out her regular school day and even attend an after-school program, not telling her parents what had happened to her until more than five hours later, according to the complaint.

The girl was assaulted in a bathroom adjacent to a special education classroom where a teacher’s aide walked in on them after he heard screaming, according to the lawsuit. Both children were naked from the waist down and the then-15-year-old boy was clutching the girl’s hips from behind, according to the lawsuit

The school officials put off telling the parents. Would that have even been possible with a non-disabled student? The school would have known this would be reported back (or that the student would have called the parents immediately).

The story goes on:

The lawsuit contends that the school should have more closely supervised the boy, “a troubled special education student having had prior difficulties and/or complaints concerning similar conduct with others.”

It isn’t the parents who have the rights to know what goes on (or at least that is not the only point here). The students have a right that their guardians know what happens to them. If the student is unable to effectively communicate what happens, his/her rights are not the same as those of everyone else in the school. Somehow that has to be remedied.

New York Magazine has a story about Andre McCollins, a student at the Judge Rotenberg Center whose repeated shocks were made public. Mr. Collins’ mother was astounded at the number of times her son was shocked in one day (31) and after watching the video of the event, fought to make that video public.

Mr. McCollins’ story has been discussed here at Left Brain/Right Brain before (here and here)

The New York Magazine story:

31 Shocks Later
Andre McCollins’s mother thought she’d finally found the right school for her son—one equipped to treat his behavioral and developmental problems. Then she took a closer look at that treatment.

As Mr. McCollins’ mother watched the video at JRC she noticed he was being shocked even while tied down and she questioned why this was happening:

Cheryl turned to the school’s officials. “Why are you shocking him?” she asked. “He’s tied down. He can’t hurt anyone.”

Robert von Heyn, then the director of psychology, explained that Andre had been shocked for “tensing up” his body, which was considered an unhealthy behavior.

A restrained young man, shocked for “tensing up” his body.

The full story gives detail and puts Mr. Collins and the JRC in context.

While not a part of the New York Magazine story, here is video of Mr. Collins being shocked:

—
By Matt Carey

In A Terrifying Way to Discipline Children, seclusion and restraint comes to the Sunday New York Times. The story begins:

IN my public school 40 years ago, teachers didn’t lay their hands on students for bad behavior. They sent them to the principal’s office. But in today’s often overcrowded and underfunded schools, where one in eight students receive help for special learning needs, the use of physical restraints and seclusion rooms has become a common way to maintain order.

Writer Bill Lichtenstein gives a parent’s account of seclusion used on his disabled daughter:

Once in kindergarten, Rose began throwing violent tantrums at home. She repeatedly watched a scene from the film “Finding Nemo” in which a shark batters its way into a tiny room, attempting to eat the main characters. The school provided no explanation or solution. Finally, on Jan. 6, 2006, a school aide called saying that Rose had taken off her clothes. We needed to come get her.

At school, her mother and I found Rose standing alone on the cement floor of a basement mop closet, illuminated by a single light bulb. There was nothing in the closet for a child — no chair, no books, no crayons, nothing but our daughter standing naked in a pool of urine, looking frightened as she tried to cover herself with her hands. On the floor lay her favorite purple-striped Hanna Andersson outfit and panties.

The full story is not long but, as you can imagine from the quote above, is sad and tough to read.