“Most will become incapacitated for work one day”

class=”sc-3778e872-0 cKDKQr”>

Mr. Schefer, a neighbor of mine, is 84, lives alone, has diabetes and her sight is getting worse. Difficult, but everyday. Would you describe them as “people with disabilities”?
Mark Scheffer: Yes, anyway.

The woman herself would say, “Absolutely not!”
I’m not surprised. Older people in particular find it difficult to see themselves as ‘handicapped’. Because this is still associated with a derogatory notion: people with disabilities are other people. Those who do not really belong to our society, who are best taken care of in a home.

Should we rethink the definition of “disability”?
We need to sharpen the perception of what we as a society understand by “disability” and how we evaluate it. A soft factor, but central to the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Switzerland has been obliged to do so since 2014.

Which view is missing?
A disability does not exist just because someone has a physical or mental disability. It only becomes a disability if it prevents that person from doing important things. About one-fifth of the population is severely limited in exercising important aspects of personality, because our society is geared towards people who do not have such limitations. The UN convention states that disability only arises through the interaction of the disability with the environment. The approach from this: one should no longer try to “sew” the affected person, but the environment. This social way of thinking needs to be anchored even more.

Back to my neighbor: she has trouble with the housework and hardly gets any help. Although she doesn’t want to, she has to go home. Would the initiative change anything?
The woman would probably be entitled to personal support and to remain in familiar surroundings. An important point on which the initiative is emphatically aimed: the right to determine for yourself how and with whom someone lives together. A right that you normally don’t think about can be a right because most people take it for granted. But because many people with a disability do not have that freedom of choice, you have to formulate a legal claim for it.

So will the inclusion initiative ultimately affect everyone in Switzerland?
Yes, what the initiative wants to enshrine in the constitution affects us all, especially those who find themselves in this situation as they get older. Most of us will eventually become disabled in some way – and we want to retain the right to choose how we spend the last part of our lives. The cause of the disorder does not matter. Whether it is health-related or from birth, whether you had an accident or whether the limitation arose with age: there is no legal difference.

Why should free choice of housing be included in the constitution?
Because it is a fundamental right that affects a large number of people in important aspects of their way of life. And because profound structural changes are needed in this area.

Does this mean dorms are outdated?
In my opinion, houses are a discontinued model. About 150,000 people with disabilities live in an institutional setting. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities aims to put an end to these institutions. But you have to be careful. The slogan “de-institutionalization” contains only the negative view: how should something no longer be? Not: how should it be? What alternative support and infrastructure models should be developed?

That sounds challenging.
A danger is that you only see things in black and white and demonize what happened before. There are many who say, “I’m fine in the house, I don’t want to go out.” You have to take that seriously. But you have to wonder why someone prefers to be at home. For fear of loneliness in a small apartment? That’s a very big topic. But would this person also want to stay at home if he had the outside support to live with social contacts? The key is to have real choice.

The choice must fall on the solution that brings the most benefits. But the more individual, the more expensive it is.
This is a typical argument in disability cases: you always know in advance that it will be too expensive.

I say it will be more expensive. Not too expensive.
But in the background it resonates: it’s expensive, so it’s a problem. Of course some things will cost us more. But now let’s develop these things and see what can be funded and what can’t. I also resent the reference to individual benefits. Because he has a certain undertone. We all want to optimize our lives and decide for ourselves as individuals – but unfortunately people with disabilities want that too.

Switzerland has ratified the UN treaty. Why is this citizens’ initiative still necessary?
It is true that all the legal obligations of the state are already laid down in the treaty. And since 2000 there is a general provision in the constitution, according to which the federal government and the cantons must eliminate disadvantages for people with disabilities. And at the federal level, there is the Disability Equality Act. Only: The things written in the constitution and the law are implemented very slowly – or not at all. After 20 years of delay, an explicit statement from the people and the cantons is now needed: We really want this, now finally moving forward! And it needs the guarantee of individual legal claims. The whole thing just takes a lot more spice, after all it’s about basic fundamental and human rights.

Source:Blick