Search

This paper considers the ways that publicly funded developmental services for adults with developmental disabilities in southern Ontario are limited in how they support clients. This paper is informed by field research conducted in the summer of 2019, which was composed of semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and a policy review. Informed by parent advocates who are the main caregivers of their adult children labelled with intellectual and developmental disabilities, this paper claims that the administrative processes of the Ontario ministry that manages and funds adult disability services relate to broader exclusionary patterns among adults with developmental disabilities. I explore this claim by reviewing how common ableist assumptions of people with developmental disabilities are ingrained in the policies and administrative processes of these services. I contribute to ongoing discussions among Critical Disability Scholars of the ways that disability as a social category can be articulated outside of ableist assumptions. Informed by parent caregiver perspectives, this article outlines how the limitations of provincially funded disability services in Ontario, Canada cause significant challenge in the lives of those labelled with intellectual and developmental disabilities. One possible explanation for these limitations is that there is a disconnect between how the provincial government classifies who should receive immediate services and how many services, versus the actual need of those labelled with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The criteria for high supports, such as monthly funding, placement into a living facility, and the provincial assessment for determining a person's 'adaptive functioning' are rooted in problematic assumptions made of people labelled with intellectual and developmental disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper problematizes the precision medicine approach embraced by the All of Us Research Program (US) and by Genomics England (UK) in terms of benefits distribution, by arguing that current "diversity and inclusion" efforts do not prevent exclusiveness, unless the framing and scope of the projects are revisited in public health terms. Grounded on document analysis and fieldwork interviews, this paper analyzes efforts to address potential patterns of exclusion upstream (from participating in precision medicine research) and downstream (from benefitting from precision medicine outputs). It argues that efforts for inclusion upstream are not corresponded downstream, and this unbalance jeopardizes the equitable capacities of the projects. It concludes that enhanced focus on socio-environmental determinants of health and aligned public health interventions as precision medicine outputs would be to the benefit of all and especially of those who are most at risk of (upstream as well as downstream) exclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]