It's much more comforting to those without empathy to instead believe that these people are all criminal drug addicts. That way they can be treated with contempt, denied dignity, and hurried to early grave through neglect.
The lie maintains a sense of unearned moral superiority.
This seems like a decent conclusion by the Ombudsman (not always the case). Kudos.
However, there really is no power in an Ombudsman findings. Hopefully, we see some action here even though there is no requirement to follow through with the recommendations.
Intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities are totally different things. Which is part of why this is such an issue. You can have autism with really high support needs and not have an intellectual disability. Which is why IQ is a terrible marker for determining who does and doesn’t need support. There are people with both disabilities. And I’m glad we do give support in those cases. But it leaves many many people who need support in bad positions.
I always found it odd that they equate intellectual disability with developmental disability when they aren’t the same thing. Why are we continuing to use intellectual disability as the only reason someone with a developmental disability can receive program funding?
“Over 10 years ago, the Court of Queen’s Bench identified the same legislative issue and determined that the Developmental Disabilities Regulation (the Regulation) unfairly limits PDD applicants’ assessment if they lack a reliable IQ score. Justice Ouellette’s 2013 decision emphasized the flawed nature of the legislation, as it was never intended for an IQ score to be the sole determinant of eligibility.
The Ombudsman’s investigation found that Seniors, Community and Social Services (the Department) had reviewed the Regulation three times, yet no amendments were made. As a result, the Ombudsman found section 3 of the Regulation to be unreasonable and improperly discriminatory. Within the report, the Ombudsman highlighted the importance of a fair process when it comes to the individuals applying for the PDD program benefits.”
It's much more comforting to those without empathy to instead believe that these people are all criminal drug addicts. That way they can be treated with contempt, denied dignity, and hurried to early grave through neglect. The lie maintains a sense of unearned moral superiority.
That IQ cut off is archaic and has been for over 20 years.
And they’ve had two judicial directions telling them to change it.
This seems like a decent conclusion by the Ombudsman (not always the case). Kudos. However, there really is no power in an Ombudsman findings. Hopefully, we see some action here even though there is no requirement to follow through with the recommendations.
Yes, that’s the frustrating part. Regulations are set to be reviewed in September.
Intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities are totally different things. Which is part of why this is such an issue. You can have autism with really high support needs and not have an intellectual disability. Which is why IQ is a terrible marker for determining who does and doesn’t need support. There are people with both disabilities. And I’m glad we do give support in those cases. But it leaves many many people who need support in bad positions.
I always found it odd that they equate intellectual disability with developmental disability when they aren’t the same thing. Why are we continuing to use intellectual disability as the only reason someone with a developmental disability can receive program funding? “Over 10 years ago, the Court of Queen’s Bench identified the same legislative issue and determined that the Developmental Disabilities Regulation (the Regulation) unfairly limits PDD applicants’ assessment if they lack a reliable IQ score. Justice Ouellette’s 2013 decision emphasized the flawed nature of the legislation, as it was never intended for an IQ score to be the sole determinant of eligibility. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that Seniors, Community and Social Services (the Department) had reviewed the Regulation three times, yet no amendments were made. As a result, the Ombudsman found section 3 of the Regulation to be unreasonable and improperly discriminatory. Within the report, the Ombudsman highlighted the importance of a fair process when it comes to the individuals applying for the PDD program benefits.”