Class Notes (834,979)
Canada (508,839)
Psychology (4,206)
PSY345H5 (172)
Lecture 13

Lecture 13.docx

8 Pages
126 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSY345H5
Professor
Stuart Kamenetsky
Semester
Winter

Description
Lecture 13: Controversial Issues (Marks) 2013 Deborah Marks  Perspective: disability studies programs o interdisciplinary (include psychology, sociology, law, anthropology, philosophy)  Psychoanalytic psychological perspective (Freudian) – challenges popular culture Moral Superiority of our Times: “case in point: FREAK SHOWS” Moral Superiority greater today than in the past  Confident that we do things better than ever before o “Toronto is one of the best places to live in the world” – rated by that by magazines o Real estate prices soaring b.c. high influx Why is it the best place? o Safe – people get along w. one another, low racism (one of lowest), sexism, disabledism o Legislations that guarantee rights – ADA, charter, CDA, etc.  Enables us to think we’re the best we can be – not the case o ppl w. disabilities – although live in tolerant society, a lot more can be done  High unemployment rates >90% for dev’t delays  Excluded from society after 21 yrs old (out of school system) o Marks: we do not have “citizenship rights/personhood” > every individual is a full member of society and has equal access to what society has to offer Case in point: don’t allow “freak shows”  Freak shows don’t fit norms – unusual > visible & provocative (grotesque usually) o significant physical deformity (face, dwarfs, giants) o Used to exist in circuses – ppl paid to see them  Have eliminated freak shows – inappropriate, inhumane, unfair to take advantage of someone’s “misery” + pay to see that > ethically wrong & b/c more morally superior now don’t allow it Mark’s Comment: we are not more morally superior  At least they were employed o even if were selling an aspect of themselves that has some commercial market value o as adults: expected to work & contribute to society >> instead we replaced their employment w. disability pension – lives for free, decreases self esteem, shuns them from society & being like everyone else + integrated  Have to think about the morality of restricting ppl of doing something that will make them feel good about themselves because they will be employed like everyone else Question : have freakshows been discontinued? NO – but ppl that participate not w. disabilities  Other freak shows that aren’t disabled seen on TV shows o hoarders, little ppl big world > no “freakish” physical properties (hunched backs) o Women that go through breast augmentations to dance for men – isn’t that freak show?  Still pay for freak shows & freak shows make a lot of money, but ppl w. disabilities are not allowed to participate in this … so is what we’re doing today better than the past? Lecture 13: Controversial Issues (Marks) 2013 Value of Life: “case in point: Mercy Killing” Human Rights – value of life  Human rights legislations don’t protect all minorities in the same way as they protect majorities  Some lives are more worthy than others o President of US is sick = gets best health care anywhere in the world; Poor Africa living in sub- Saharan African, if dies no one will know/care o In Canada we may be better, but if a wealthy family is sick they will pay for private health care in US instead of being put on a waitlist to get to Canada & if they have doctors in the family find a way to get better treatment Robert Latimer: mercy killing  father who murdered his daughter (Tracy) o Tracy: oxygen deprivation during birth = cerebral palsy o Murdered when she was 11 or 12 with carbon monoxide (attached to tube from truck)  His justification: she suffered o couldn’t date, went to school but was on seizure medication, the pain medication was limited, had many surgeries & was due for more surgeries  Legal system: Supreme Court of Canada 2x debating mercy killing o Convicted w. Murder 2 (although premeditated) o Served LITTLE time (would have been 1 year if he expressed remorse, but he didn’t) o Was due to serve more, but gradually decreased to 10 years on parole o Low security prison – running his farm still & got 2 university degrees  UNJUST system: murdering disabled v. non-disabled o Premeditated murder of non-disabled person: at least 25 yrs w. no parole o It was mercy killing – understand circumstances – CND survey: ¾ agreed w. decision KEY PROBLEM: he made that decision himself & courts gave him the right to do it o no legislation: “in such cases have to refer decision to a panel (drs., biochemisits, religious figures, community members) that debates the case & decides whether such a killing is warranted & if it is, it is done humanely in a hospital around family” o THEREFORE: reduced sentence = the right to decide the value of his daughter’s life o But who is he to decide that? Evidence Tracy was happy (smiled, liked by peers, school) Mark’s Comment:  Disability (& human rights) groups: no one can determine the value of another person’s life  BUT the legal system is not subscribing to this – mercy killing is “understood” if remorse showed  Utilitarian argument: “quality of ppl’s lives is low if they won’t have utility (contributing to society)”, therefore disabled ppl must have lower qualities of life – reflected in human rights o Social Class & Financial Resources, Mercy Killing Argument that justifies lives of disabled are less worthy: 1. People can’t image how they would cope if they had severe impairment 2. Impairment is culturally constituted as tragic (tragedy for child & family) 3. Therefore: desire to continue living/raise such a child undergoing tragic circumstances is seen as incomprehensible {therefore tragedy = moral right to take a life} = easy to understand Robert felt Tracy’s life wasn’t valuable – b/c if we were Tracy we wouldn’t want to live like that > BUT! we aren’t her – making assumptions that disabled have tragic lives  Can’t make judgements based on assumptions; Pt3. MORAL RIGHT to take someone’s life Lecture 13: Controversial Issues (Marks) 2013 Medicine: presents itself as value free but it is not  Medical professions: up on hierarchy of professions (responsible & prestigious to be a dr.) o See medicine as extension of science – use scientific principles to better lives o “Medical Model”: sick w. pathogen treated w. medication to rid of pathogen  MARKS : when it comes to medicine, it is not value free – values imposed on disabilities Scientific Eradication of Disabilit(eugenics, amniocentesis) – Technology available, but not possible go Eradicate o Always have acquired disabilities  aging process (neurological disorders – huntington’s, alzheimer’s)  Cancers = disabilities, brain injuries b/c of strokes, aneurysms, brain tumours  Unpreventable accidents o The fact that technology is available – producing a society that looks down on disability  MARKS: snc is promoting the notion that their lives are not worth living > if medicine is prestine & trying to get rid of disability, the message is NOT VALUE free – puts value of a disabled life Objectifying gaze  Patients: passive, undergo emotional damage, less motivated o Mind & body are closely related – prognosis (healing) is lower  Examples: Drs. treat patients like they are damaged & need repair (little “how are u”) Plays God  NOT value free – decide who will live {whose life is of value} Beginning of Life: Premature Children o more premature = more disability risk (AUTISM, PDD, ADD) + health problems + complications (visual & hearing impairments) o use technology to replace & go against nature – if no technology, the child may die BUT we use technology to enable child to survive  BUT later: child has a lot of disabilities to live with and will be thrown out of the system & put on disability pensions @ 21 End of Life: Who gets Treatment? What type of treatment? o Treating cancer @30 diff. than treating it @40  “statistically wont life longer, so why extend resources on you?”  Private health care is worse >> decisions made by ppl who run hospitals o Preserving life? Stroke @ 75-80 yrs/Comas  Kept alive by being connected to a machine/breathing tube  IS THIS RIGHT? What would the person want? The Right of individual to not be seen like that? o EG. Rodriguez – wanted to end life (disability & illness) & asked drs. to do it >> legal reasons can use technologies for certain reasons, not for others >> not value free Eugenics (Sterilization)/Amniocentesis  Sterilization won’t prevent disabilities (even if genetic) o EG. hearing impairments: 200 diff. types of impairments – 1/6 ppl have the gene for deafness & only 1 combo = hearing impaireth(10% of deaf kids = deaf parents) o So what will you do? Kill every 6 person – how about other genes? No one will be left  Eugenics has been misinformed – used to sterilize ‘undesirable” not only “know for sure” o Even if you sterilize, you can’t eradicate! >> the same problem w. amniocentesis  tell parents if child has congenital disability & aborting is up to parents  DRS.: “we provide technology, it’s parents decisions & their values” – o BUT once provide technology –how it will be used who knows (eg. deciding on sex)  Big ethical concern w. all of this – especially that at the end of the day medicine is not value free Medicine as a GATEKEEPER of Public Funds/Values  Gatekeeper of public funds & values – “eg medical notes exemptions for academics”  Entrusted medical professionals to make decisions in society Lecture 13: Controversial Issues (Marks) 2013 o go to a doctor for a cure, notes to excuse you from responsibilities others aren’t, or access to resources (disabled – disability pension, get it only if licensed physician is certified to say you are disabled enough to access resources) o eg. Ritalin (bought outside NA) >> determined by culture, society, law not just by the DRs & their values  MARKS blames DRs; BUT in response to how society has developed & become competitive that ppl will resort to anything to get ahead >> DRs have been entrusted to make that happen VALUE in “SICK ROLES” o “final determination DRs make – “the sick role” (role when you’re sick) o DRS decide: do you/not qualify for the EXAMPLE: o Mentally ill stole snow plow, killed police office – does he quality for SICK ROLE that day? 8 psychiatrists involved to try to make determination – if yes, then person cannot be held criminally responsible for actions b/c mentally ill o If DR. decided that you’re sick = evidence whether person is responsible for behaviour  NOT VALUE FREE b/c DRs assume roles as gatekeepers IMPAIRMENT v. DISABILITY  Impairment: pathogen (internal aspect of body)  neurological damage, broken bones, amputated limbs, etc. – that causes the body to not work as well as it should (or normally does in normal people)  Disability: experience of impairment (eg. not being able to get to work, not walking) THE MEDICAL MODEL:  Disability is a DIRECT consequence of disability (eg. broken legs = cannot work) THE SOCIAL MODEL:  Impairment may or may not lead to disability, depending on the society (eg. ramps?) ** Important to consider both models & not side w. one or another ** Lecture 13: Controversial Issues (Marks) 2013 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION of Disability: Location of disability?External (has to do w. society; not inward pathogen leading to disability) Impairment must lead to disability? No, it depends on soc
More Less

Related notes for PSY345H5

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit