Equality and difference in relation to persons with disabilities (A criticism of General comment n.º 1 (2014) of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30827/acfs.v52i0.6556Keywords:
Human rights, disability, persone, illness, paternalism, autonomy, equality, dignityAbstract
This article is a criticism of General comment n.º 1 (2014) of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with regard to the correct interpretation of article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
With this Observation, the Committee assumes an ideology regarding the rights of people with disabilities that is not generally accepted. This position is based on the following three thesis: 1) it supports the social model of disability against the medical model; 2) rather than considering disability as an evil (or a harm) it is seen as a positive value through the notion of functional diversity; and 3) all types of disability are treated equally, in particular, no distinction is made between mental disability and others types of disabilities, when interpreting article 12 of the Convention. According to the Committee, this represents a “change of paradigm”, necessary for the respect of the dignity of people with disabilities.
In this paper, these theses and the underlying conception of dignity are criticised. In the author’s opinion, the biomedical concept of illness and disability is essential; mental disabilities must be dealt with in a different way to those which do not involve the inability to take decisions; illness and disability ought to be considered both an evil and a harm (which must be overcome) but this should not imply moral contempt for the ill or disabled person; and, lastly, it is a mistake to limit the idea of dignity to that of personal autonomy.
Downloads
References
AA.VV. (1995). DSM-IV. Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de los trastornos mentales. Barcelona: Masson.
Alemany, M. (2006). El paternalismo jurídico. Madrid: Iustel.
Atienza, M. (2016). Dignidad humana y derechos de las personas con discapacidad. Revista Ius et Veritas, 53, Diciembre.
Bunge, M. (2009). ¿Qué es filosofar científicamente? Lima: Universidad Inca Garcilaso de la Vega.
Canimas, J. (2016). Decidir por el otro es a veces necesario. En AA.VV. La incapacitación, reflexiones sobre la posición de Naciones Unidas. Barcelona: Cuadernos de la Fundación Víctor Grifols i Lucas, 39.
De Lora, P. (2003). Justicia para los animales. Madrid: Alianza.
Del Pozo Álvarez, J. M. (2010). La cura respectuosa. En AA.VV., Els reptes ètics de la intervenció social, Girona, Fundació Campus Arnau d’Escala.
Garzón Valdés, E. (1988). ¿Es éticamente justificable el paternalismo jurídico? Doxa, 5.
Gert, B., Culver, Ch. y Clouser, K. D. (1997). Bioethics: A Return to Fundamentals. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Gil, L. (1969). Therapeia. La medicina popular en el mundo clásico. Madrid: Guadarrama.
Gracia, D. (2008). Fundamentos de bioética. Madrid: Triacastela.
Hart, H.L.A. (1963). Law, Liberty and Morality. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Laporta, F. (1987). Sobre el concepto de derechos humanos. Doxa. Cuadernos de filosofía del Derecho, 4.
Palacios, A. (2008). El modelo social de discapacidad: orígenes, caracterización y plasmación en la Convención Internacional sobre los derechos de las personas con discapacidad. Madrid: Cermi, 2008.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Nueva York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Perelman, Ch. y Olberchts-Tyteca, L. (2006). Tratado de la argumentación. La nueva retórica. Madrid: Gredos.
Shapiro, J. (1994). No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. New York: Times Books, Random House.
Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation. Nueva York: Random House.
Solé, J. M. (2016). Artículo 12 de la Convención. Hacia el fin de las tutelas. En AA.VV., La incapacitación, reflexiones sobre la posición de Naciones Unidas, Barcelona, Cuadernos de la Fundación Víctor Grifols i Lucas, 39.
Wikler, D. (1987). Paternalism and the Mildly Retarded. En Sartorius, R. (comp.), Paternalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors are the owners of the rights to their works. ACFS requests that publication notice on ACFS is disclosed if they appear later in another place.
