|
 |
 |
|
Archived
News and Projects VOR - Essay on Choice
Summary: The following essay considers how Choice" is defined, and how it should be defined, in today's advocacy on behalf of people with mental retardation. Note: The Oaks Group, referenced in the essay below, is an organization that supports total deinstitutionalization.
Paul Schonauer
Persons with developmental disabilities have the same legal rights and responsibilities guaranteed all other individuals by the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of California. No otherwise qualified person by reason of having a developmental disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, which receives public funds.(WIC 4502.)
One right of particular interest in our current quandary is the right of choice. Institutions are programs that receive public funds and therefore they are a viable option and choice for our consumers. To not recognize an institution as a viable option and a choice when such a choice exists is to not recognize a consumer's right to choose. This is unacceptable.
In 1990 the Coffelt et al class action lawsuit was filed against the Department of Developmental Services for failing to provide appropriate community services for people with developmental disabilities. One of several points of complaint was the institutionalization of people with developmental disabilities against their choice and need. It was declared that this act was a violation of the Lanterman Act. Part of the settlement agreement was to develop services in order to maintain persons with developmental disabilities in the living arrangement of their own choice. Choice and its mandate within the Lanterman act became part of the platform for the judicial review that has positively altered the lives of many individuals who were previously institutionalized. (see Conroy)
Unfortunately, when choice becomes the argument for others the same advocates that made possible this landmark settlement, by use of equivocal language, set up straw men to rebut and stymie the force of those arguments and the meaning of choice. We can not suspend basic fundamental rights we eagerly embraced yesterday because they no longer further our cause today. These straw men are often constructed with reference to Dr. Steven J. Taylor's piece, "On Choice" and quotes from Michael Smull. "On Choice" is an excellent read. However, it is a rebuttal against using "choice" as an argument for institutionalization and the improper use of public funds for such a public policy. It is NOT a rebuttal to choice itself!
The fact that "choice" is NOT an argument for institutionalization does not justify the removal of someone's choice to live in an institution IF THAT CHOICE EXISTS.
The fact that society has no responsibility to subsidize institutions (and perhaps should not subsidize institutions) is NOT an argument to remove someone's choice to live in an institution should society choose to subsidize institutions. This is clearly outlined in the beginning of the Lanterman Act. This is the same act responsible for the Coffelt settlement.
"Public policy toward people with disabilities should support opportunities to make the same choices other people make" -Dr. Steven J. Taylor-
An argument for what policy "should" support is not an argument against someone's right to choose that policy that the public does support.
If we are going to allow consumers to choose we must allow them to make all choices that our society has made available to them and not just the choices we like. The point is expressed within PAI's peer advocacy guidelines, "After discussing the situation and the available options, if the person chooses to do nothing, that choice must be respected."[Role of the Peer Advocate in Teaching Self-Advocacy Skills, Chapter 8, point 9]. If we are going to embrace the Lanterman Act for the gains of one consumer then we must allow another consumer to embrace the Lanterman Act as well. Even if we do not believe their choices are gains. We cannot put aside the law when we choose and if we see fit. This attitude contains no sense of fair play.
To not recognize an institution as a viable option and a choice when social policy dictates that such a choice exists is to not recognize a consumer's right to choose or their ability to choose. This position is as unacceptable to me as institutionalizing and individual against their wishes.
Therefore, I wish to ask The Oaks Group and other applicable groups to extend the olive branch and recognize a choice that the state of California has recognized both legislatively and judicially.
I am NOT asking the Oaks Group to endorse Institutions.
I am however, asking the Oaks Group to endorse and recognize a consumer's right to choose from the options that do exist. Read More Archived News Stories AB896 General Human Interest Litigation State Budget
CASH/PCR is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation law for public and charitable purposes. |
 |
|
 |