I had originally decided to entitle my first article entering a black hole and scratching your way out through a White Dwarf.
This will not be the title of my first article because things have happened in my country which have the potential of hurting many disabled individuals.
The title of my first article is Olmstead a Victory or a Defeat in disguise. If such an atmosphere exist in my country, one which I thought was progressive, then these same ideas can penetrate the ideas of many other governments. If this happens then things will certainly become worse for the disabled world wide.
Olmstead a Victory or a Defeat in disguise.
If you have kept up with Olmstead, it appears to have been a victory for those with mental health problems but on closer diagnosis it may have been a defeat which will disqualify many from help under ADA. Even those who won the decision may find that they don't qualify for ADA protection because they may be declared to be medically controlled by competent physicians who may be employees of the state.
This could happen because of two other decisions which were handed down by the Supreme Court of America. Essentially these two other other decisions maintained that if you have a condition which is medically controlled, or mechanically alleviated then your major life functions may not hinder you. You are therefore not disabled in the strict meaning of the law. If you aren't considered to be disabled according to the law then you may find that you may not be afforded any protection under ADA.(American's With Disabilities Act).
If this interpretation stands then people with medically controlled disorders-this can range from ADD, ADHD, Epilepsy, Developmental Disabilities, or Mental Health problems- may discover that they are no longer qualified for protection under ADA. Their conditions or disorders are either medically controlled or they have been compensated for through the use of artificial means of movement such as wheel chairs. They,in the strict meaning of the law, aren't disabled. They still have the problem and may be regarded as risks for private insurance but they can still gain employment! How can this be? Employers don't hire perceived liabilities;they hire assets?
Go To Page: 1 2
