User talk:Inspired Motivator194/sandbox

Normalcy
The definition of normalcy given by Merriam Webster Dictionary is: "the state or fact of being normal".

Through the lenses of the disabled community, normalcy is viewed as an act of marginalizing a disabled person. In Rethinking Normalcy: A Disability Studies Reader, written by Rod Michalko and Tanya Titchkosky, discusses the connection between disability studies and the term 'Normalcy'. They state, "From the perspective of disability studies, studying the centrality of normalcy is a way to know and resist that which makes disability matter as a form of devalued marginality". Disabled people tend to be marginalized due to their impairments, leading them to appear inhuman from the rest of society, as well as people who are not normal within the normal-scale created by society. This secondary source continues to explain the relevance between disabled people and the term 'Normalcy'. It connects back to the main topic of the medical model of disability. This particular model focuses on the individual from the lenses of doctors and others within the medical field or profession, enforcing the idea that we must fix or cure the disabled individual in order to appear or act normal. This may also help strengthen the criticism section within the page because it brings up a particular issue in which the medical model of disability holds--while a doctor has the mindset of fixing the disabled person, it creates the risk of devaluing the individual as an object, an it, instead of as a human being capable of living as 'normal' a life as a non-disabled person.

The medical community’s efforts to normalize the disabled has led to those living with a disability hospitalized, in some cases without their consent. Throughout history, disabled people have been placed in hospitals that lacked sanitary and professional care. Disabled people have battled for better hospitals that will treat them as human beings instead of animals; for this reason, they have fought for a sense of normalcy. They have also battled against hospitalization overall and instead have wished to live in their own homes with a personal nurse or assistant. This being said, there was a periodical, A Sense of Normalcy, written by David G. Savage, issued May 1999 that addresses: the "U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Americans With Disabilities Act gives the mentally ill or mentally retarded a right to be treated somewhere other than large hospitals". This creates an argument for the independence, self-choosing, and free will that has been taken away from them by the medical model. This source brings up the fact that those living with a disability want to be treated as equals, but only when given the right accommodations that they are entitled to. The medical model says that the problem lies in the individual, and that with the right medicine or prosthetic, they can overcome their disability and become normal. With the right communication from both sides, the ability to accommodate disabled people will be better in the long run than not giving them any input at all.

Since the medical model has viewed disability as something that can and should be fixed or cured, this has created issues within the disabiled community. In "The Tyranny of 'Normalcy'", written by Lennard J. Davis, he discusses many aspects dealing with disability, such as its models, disability scholars desired studies, the deaf community, and how the term 'Normalcy' has created unclear definitions for what it means to be 'disabled'. This source states that the medical model "treats disability as a disease in need of a cure", yet the majority of those who find themselves disabled state that it is physically impossible to overcome a disability. Doctors can try millions of strategies or medicines that will help those who are disabled to control or possibly substitute their disability or impairment, yet it will not vanish completely or be 100% cured.

Doctors are people who have studied medicine and are taught to be of service to their patients by using medical and non-medical resources. In a blog posted by Withersaj, "Medicalization and the Medical Model", defined by Cathrine Kohler Riessam, she discusses the connection between the medical model to doctors and those who are disabled. Within this source, it mentions the issue of the interpretation of the medical model and doctors. Riessam goes into detail about how doctors have power over disabled people's daily lives, and how "doctors are not necessarily skilled in the delivery of these services (medical and non-medical sources), they can misrepresent the needs of disabled people." This means that doctors can misunderstand what it means to be disabled, which can lead them to helping disabled people in a way that hinders them more. This source could be a strong advocate to criticize the overall page of the medical model of disability. It explains not only issues raised within the medical model, but medicalization in general sense.

Another source talking about the medical model is an article called "Medical Model of Disability" which was written by Andrew Fallon. This source is a great advocate for not only defining the medical model, but also showing how disabled people are seen through these lenses. Fallen states that "disabled people are by definition then dependent on others to help them and decided on care/treatment for their disability. Disability is a tragedy..." This refers to the way disability is viewed through the lenses of doctors and others within the medical profession. It also brings up a statement that could be argued against, the fact that disabled people are 'dependent' and need others to decide or care for them because they are not physically capable of doing it themselves. This leads us to the term 'Normalcy', and the possible confusion that a person with the impairment needs to become 'more normal' in order to be a valuable part of the community. This source could also be a great advocate to the criticism section of the page because it discusses what areas are still lacking in knowledge on the idea of being disabled.

Given the fact that the medical model resides on the individual as the problem and needs to be 'cured', another controversy appears whether society has to accommodate and change for the individual living with a disability. Within the article, "The Definition of Disability", written by Deborah Kaplan, it comes not only in defining the models of disability but also adds a brief summary on its history. Looking through the lenses of the medical model, Kaplan states that, "Society has no underlying responsibility to make a "place" for persons with disabilities, since they live in an outsider role waiting to be cured". Granted, not everyone may feel the same way about this concept, especially those who lack understanding of the true meaning of what it is to be disabled in society. Its relation to the term 'Normalcy', comes from the fact that society tends to believe that someone who is not normal should be either segregated from society or try their best to overcome their impairment. With this in mind, there are times when society feels it does not have to accommodate someone who does not live the same way as they do. This source could be a fantastic advocate on not only defining the overall page, but in some way it may be useful for all sections within the page.

Inspired Motivator194 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)