Document Type : Academicm and Research
Authors
1
Ph. D. Candidate in Women and Family Studies, University of Faiths and Religions .
2
Assistant Professor, Philosophy of Religion Department, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Religions and Denominations.
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Women Rights in Islam, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Religions and Denominations.
4
Assistant Professor, Department of Non-Abrahamic Religions, Faculty of Religions, University of Religions and Denominations.
10.22091/csiw.2020.5636.1844
Abstract
Susan Wendell, a feminist philosopher, has made feminist critiques of common definitions of disability in universal legal documents. According to her, changes should be made in the definition of disability in the important document of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the United Nations. First and foremost, it must be accepted that the natural structure and function and the natural ability to perform activities depend on the physical, social and cultural environment in which one lives. Accordingly, not only in the political, social and cultural dimensions, but even in the biological dimension, disability cannot find a single definition. As a result, we are not dealing with a single definition of disability, but we are dealing with "definitions" of disability and WHO, in principle, cannot universalize a single definition. Second, in the definitions of disability, great diversity should be considered in the disabled themselves, and even common disabilities without sharing in gender, class, race and age should not be included in a definition group. Third, in the correct definitions of disability, a limit should be set for those who have a conflict in the identity of the disability or the crisis of the identity of the disability, so that they do not fall into the category of healthy or disabled and can have enough time and energy to solve their challenge. And fourth, the exact distinction between patient and disabled is not in the best interest of either patient or disabled, but rather in the interest of patient support organizations and disability support organizations to reduce the number of clients and their costs. Wendell can be criticized for not using neutral, relative and cultural terms in the definition of disability, and this is in contrast with the purpose of defending the rights of persons with disabilities. Instead, one can distinguish between the definition of a person with a disability and the definition of a characteristic of a disability.
Keywords
)
Send comment about this article