Wednesday, 17 April 2019

Don't label me?

Image result for Labels are for Jars?
Ongoing social media viewpoints that seem to continue being tired and frustrated with relentless drives for identities and the labelling of people.


#1  I agree personal choice 💜l just take a deep breath and a step back so over people telling me how l should describe MY hearing issues and other health matters😑

#2  Do you think for some people the trauma is so serious, adopting an alternative communication and culture is just a rather clever way of overcoming it and it isn't  'taking the easiest way out?'   

#3  We get 'born again' deaf/Deaf too who become rather rabid in defending an area they erstwhile never belonged to.  As the poster pointed out don't label me in the process.  Or use the word 'WE'.

#4   All of us tend to use the plural as it viewed we are mostly in the same boat.   But the ocean we sail on isn't the same one is it?   In my part of the UK hearing loss issues via health service (NHS)  'definitions' had 13 different descriptions of who, and what we are via classifications, obviously the system has a view on our ID too.   The primary area defined was 'deaf with a capital D.' and the next one a rather all-encompassing description of everyone else as ' 1 in 6.'  Deaf-blind were relegated in the priorities rather indiscriminately as an area and not really classified as an area with hearing loss at all.

The success of promoting the d/D (Whatever floats those boats), need or want, has driven down demand for anyone else's.  I did ask  why there was no system that was compatible support-wise for those with hearing loss, which I said did not really cover born deaf at all since you have to lose hearing before it becomes an actual 'loss', and there is a world of difference not having any useful or hearing day one, to have heard for years and THEN losing it, or losing it day by day etc... which I suggested was a more accurate description of the disabling aspect. 

The response was "We respond to individual demand, that is, how people present to us via need, that need may take many forms, e.g.  health, language, or cultural norms..' the areas you describe as 'non-cultural' make few demands on us of note, when they do we try to respond to those.  Other areas are primary drivers of need and support that cover more than the basic 'hearing loss' (which to us usually means hearing aids/CI's, assessing loss, even ear wax etc.). We apologise if that looks like labelling people, but it does seem reflected in the way other areas of support function in self-descriptions."  

#5  There is a challenge to disability there surely? since being e.g. born a particular way, it can be seen as a 'norm' for that person, and only a disablement via how others see it compared to them.  A preamble about models or something. It's a primary argument for those born deaf who reject the disability tag and is the basis of the 'social model' thing, which of course HoH may accept/adopt, or may well reject outright as an argument for disability too.  The more simplistic responses tend to suggest some 'blame culture' is attached to the point. People get put on the defensive, adopt the martyrdom syndrome, feeling they have to justify themselves.  Hearing loss as an issue gets lost altogether.  They would like us to think it was all part of some grand design to laud deafness and culture, but the odds are totally against that happening.

#6  Each assessment of own need is different, each patient in a health system is treated that way, they claim to have no 'politics' of care, but challenges to any label or 'model' happen, as areas of the system try to treat or support patients a particular way, e.g. using different languages etc... issues can be created before treatment takes place, then, the politics of rights come in to play.   The real issue is in creating effective and directed support systems geared to those demands,  labelling tends to define that,  rather than treat people as the individuals they are. THEN it becomes a problem of systems being unable to adapt to the relentless labelling and 'norms' they adopt (which appear to change day by day).

#7   They are just PATIENTS as far as medical professionals are concerned ! and they have enough work to do without messing about with people who don't know who or what they are, unless of course, it is connected to some mental aberration that requires clinical treatment.   I think some of them are confused enough without others laying down yet more terminological minefields to negotiate.  either you require medical help or you don't.


No comments:

Post a Comment