1 00:00:05,310 --> 00:00:06,390 Elysia: Welcome to the Oxford 2 00:00:06,390 --> 00:00:07,860 Undergraduate Law Podcast, 3 00:00:08,370 --> 00:00:10,140 where we discuss the law and its 4 00:00:10,140 --> 00:00:11,820 implications on our relationships, 5 00:00:12,120 --> 00:00:13,710 our markets, and our futures. 6 00:00:14,340 --> 00:00:15,899 I'm Elysia Boon, one 7 00:00:15,899 --> 00:00:17,280 of the podcast editors. 8 00:00:17,940 --> 00:00:20,310 We platform academics, practitioners, 9 00:00:20,430 --> 00:00:22,290 and experts from different 10 00:00:22,290 --> 00:00:23,610 backgrounds on this podcast. 11 00:00:24,660 --> 00:00:26,560 This series was made possible by the 12 00:00:26,580 --> 00:00:28,940 generous support of Crown Office Chambers, 13 00:00:29,400 --> 00:00:31,530 one of the leading London sets of chambers 14 00:00:31,770 --> 00:00:33,930 specializing in civil and commercial work. 15 00:00:36,276 --> 00:00:38,586 The definition of disability is primarily 16 00:00:38,586 --> 00:00:40,356 governed by the Equality Act 2010. 17 00:00:41,046 --> 00:00:42,846 One is considered to have a disability 18 00:00:43,116 --> 00:00:44,556 if they have a physical or mental 19 00:00:44,556 --> 00:00:46,806 impairment that has a substantial and 20 00:00:46,806 --> 00:00:49,056 long-term negative effect on one's 21 00:00:49,056 --> 00:00:51,246 ability to do normal daily activities. 22 00:00:51,846 --> 00:00:53,736 The law as it relates to disability 23 00:00:54,066 --> 00:00:56,046 affects a range of social interactions, 24 00:00:56,391 --> 00:00:58,341 from discrimination to a duty to 25 00:00:58,341 --> 00:01:00,201 make reasonable adjustments, and 26 00:01:00,201 --> 00:01:01,971 conversations surrounding it primarily 27 00:01:01,971 --> 00:01:03,861 focus on ethical considerations 28 00:01:03,981 --> 00:01:05,691 and the legal decisions themselves. 29 00:01:06,621 --> 00:01:08,811 However, an often forgotten aspect 30 00:01:08,811 --> 00:01:11,421 of disability law is the terminology, 31 00:01:11,571 --> 00:01:13,011 legislation, and the judiciary 32 00:01:13,011 --> 00:01:14,931 specifically used to describe and 33 00:01:14,931 --> 00:01:17,001 label disability, which has profound 34 00:01:17,001 --> 00:01:18,711 impact on how people understand 35 00:01:18,711 --> 00:01:20,451 and treat people with disabilities. 36 00:01:21,696 --> 00:01:23,886 Today we are extremely honored to speak 37 00:01:23,886 --> 00:01:26,496 to Dr. Heloise Robinson, Singer Fellow 38 00:01:26,496 --> 00:01:28,236 in Law at the University of Oxford. 39 00:01:28,896 --> 00:01:30,516 Dr. Robinson is interested in the 40 00:01:30,516 --> 00:01:32,316 philosophical foundations that inform the 41 00:01:32,316 --> 00:01:34,506 law, with a special focus on legal and 42 00:01:34,506 --> 00:01:36,276 ethical issues surrounding a selection 43 00:01:36,276 --> 00:01:38,766 against disability, including in relation 44 00:01:38,766 --> 00:01:40,866 to eugenics and to gender equality. 45 00:01:41,736 --> 00:01:43,686 Her work has been published in leading 46 00:01:43,686 --> 00:01:45,966 law and bioethics journals, such as 47 00:01:45,966 --> 00:01:48,486 the Modern Law Review Legal Studies, 48 00:01:48,996 --> 00:01:50,796 Journal of Medical Ethics and the 49 00:01:50,796 --> 00:01:52,746 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 50 00:01:53,423 --> 00:01:54,533 Hello, Dr. Robinson. 51 00:01:54,533 --> 00:01:55,913 It's great to have you here today. 52 00:01:56,153 --> 00:01:57,713 Just to introduce us to the realm 53 00:01:57,713 --> 00:01:59,303 of disability law, what are the 54 00:01:59,303 --> 00:02:00,953 laws that govern disability, such 55 00:02:00,953 --> 00:02:02,873 as the Equality Act 2010 and the 56 00:02:02,873 --> 00:02:04,463 European Convention of Human Rights? 57 00:02:04,684 --> 00:02:05,011 Heloise: Great. 58 00:02:05,011 --> 00:02:06,091 Thank you for having me. 59 00:02:06,151 --> 00:02:07,231 I'm happy to be here. 60 00:02:07,331 --> 00:02:09,521 The question as to what is disability 61 00:02:09,521 --> 00:02:11,321 law or what we're looking at when 62 00:02:11,321 --> 00:02:12,851 we're looking at disability law 63 00:02:12,851 --> 00:02:14,561 is a very interesting question. 64 00:02:14,891 --> 00:02:17,784 I think actually it's very broad. 65 00:02:17,848 --> 00:02:19,138 There's not a very straightforward 66 00:02:19,138 --> 00:02:20,158 answer to that question. 67 00:02:20,158 --> 00:02:23,458 So when people think about what might 68 00:02:23,458 --> 00:02:25,198 be disability law or how disability 69 00:02:25,198 --> 00:02:27,838 is relevant in the law, people may 70 00:02:27,838 --> 00:02:31,031 well think about certain explicit 71 00:02:31,031 --> 00:02:32,771 mentions to disability, and certainly 72 00:02:32,771 --> 00:02:34,031 you mentioned the Equality Act. 73 00:02:34,031 --> 00:02:35,951 So the Equality Act has a definition 74 00:02:35,981 --> 00:02:37,901 of disability and people will often 75 00:02:37,901 --> 00:02:40,594 refer to that, although of course 76 00:02:40,594 --> 00:02:42,744 that definition is relevant in the 77 00:02:42,744 --> 00:02:45,576 particular context of that statute. 78 00:02:45,792 --> 00:02:48,042 If we are thinking about how 79 00:02:48,102 --> 00:02:51,042 disability is relevant in the law, 80 00:02:51,042 --> 00:02:53,082 or more broadly what disability law 81 00:02:53,082 --> 00:02:55,525 can be, it can go far beyond that. 82 00:02:55,525 --> 00:02:57,205 You might want to look at how 83 00:02:57,205 --> 00:02:59,762 disability is treated within or 84 00:02:59,762 --> 00:03:01,712 approached in certain areas like 85 00:03:01,772 --> 00:03:04,982 contract law, tort law, criminal law. 86 00:03:05,149 --> 00:03:07,264 And so it's an interesting 87 00:03:07,264 --> 00:03:08,771 question to think about how 88 00:03:08,771 --> 00:03:10,151 the law approaches disability. 89 00:03:10,181 --> 00:03:12,243 I would say it's a much wider topic 90 00:03:12,333 --> 00:03:14,223 than what many people might think. 91 00:03:15,069 --> 00:03:16,749 Elysia: So this podcast episode isn't 92 00:03:16,749 --> 00:03:18,639 necessarily going to be all about 93 00:03:18,639 --> 00:03:20,679 substantive law because it is mainly 94 00:03:20,679 --> 00:03:22,539 based on your paper "Naming and Describing 95 00:03:22,539 --> 00:03:24,249 Disability in the Law", which draws 96 00:03:24,249 --> 00:03:26,019 from lots of different parts of the law. 97 00:03:26,019 --> 00:03:28,059 It's not just law, but also language in 98 00:03:28,059 --> 00:03:30,099 the philosophical or jurisprudential way. 99 00:03:30,279 --> 00:03:31,359 So, if you like to tell us a little 100 00:03:31,359 --> 00:03:33,519 bit like an overview of what your 101 00:03:33,519 --> 00:03:35,499 paper is about and why it's important. 102 00:03:35,730 --> 00:03:36,060 Heloise: Yes. 103 00:03:36,060 --> 00:03:36,540 Thank you. 104 00:03:36,540 --> 00:03:38,710 So this paper, I authored it with 105 00:03:38,710 --> 00:03:40,170 Professor Jonathan Herring, we 106 00:03:40,170 --> 00:03:42,870 wrote it together and that's right. 107 00:03:42,870 --> 00:03:45,120 So in this article, we look at the 108 00:03:45,120 --> 00:03:49,170 way that a disability is named and 109 00:03:49,170 --> 00:03:52,066 described in the context of medicine 110 00:03:52,126 --> 00:03:54,286 as well as in the legal context. 111 00:03:54,723 --> 00:03:56,313 It's important to say that the article 112 00:03:56,313 --> 00:03:59,163 is, is not really actually about, 113 00:03:59,225 --> 00:04:01,670 substantive law or legal effect, 114 00:04:01,880 --> 00:04:03,740 but about the words themselves. 115 00:04:04,520 --> 00:04:06,380 So the terminology, the language 116 00:04:06,380 --> 00:04:09,590 itself that's used and of course 117 00:04:09,590 --> 00:04:11,720 legal effect is important or 118 00:04:11,720 --> 00:04:13,160 questions in the medical context 119 00:04:13,160 --> 00:04:15,500 about medical treatment are important. 120 00:04:15,620 --> 00:04:18,560 But what we focused on are the words 121 00:04:18,875 --> 00:04:21,995 which also deserve separate attention. 122 00:04:23,105 --> 00:04:27,668 So the words that are used to name, 123 00:04:27,668 --> 00:04:29,978 to label, to describe -- it can 124 00:04:29,978 --> 00:04:32,897 affect someone's sense of identity, 125 00:04:32,897 --> 00:04:34,757 the way they perceive themselves. 126 00:04:34,784 --> 00:04:36,914 It can affect the way that other 127 00:04:36,944 --> 00:04:39,234 people perceive an individual. 128 00:04:40,194 --> 00:04:42,644 And one of the reasons we examine, 129 00:04:42,644 --> 00:04:44,444 in particular, the context of 130 00:04:44,444 --> 00:04:47,001 medicine and law is that in those 131 00:04:47,001 --> 00:04:49,191 contexts, there's authority. 132 00:04:49,281 --> 00:04:50,779 So there's an authoritative 133 00:04:50,779 --> 00:04:52,661 source behind the words. 134 00:04:52,661 --> 00:04:54,491 So, so many people in their 135 00:04:54,491 --> 00:04:56,471 everyday lives refer to disability. 136 00:04:56,771 --> 00:04:58,511 People have different preferences 137 00:04:58,511 --> 00:05:01,241 as to which words are used. 138 00:05:01,504 --> 00:05:03,364 Different individuals prefer different 139 00:05:03,364 --> 00:05:07,566 terms, but in medicine, you have a 140 00:05:07,566 --> 00:05:10,416 source of authority as to official 141 00:05:10,416 --> 00:05:13,266 terminology, and in the law as well, 142 00:05:13,866 --> 00:05:15,696 some of the language used might seem 143 00:05:15,696 --> 00:05:17,376 to reflect the view of the state. 144 00:05:17,682 --> 00:05:21,132 And so to some extent, you can't always, 145 00:05:21,132 --> 00:05:22,782 if you disagree with the language use, 146 00:05:22,782 --> 00:05:24,672 you can't necessarily avoid it because 147 00:05:24,672 --> 00:05:26,922 you might need to name a particular 148 00:05:26,922 --> 00:05:29,652 condition in the medical context, or 149 00:05:29,652 --> 00:05:31,856 you might need to use the words in a 150 00:05:31,856 --> 00:05:34,962 statute, specifically in legal argument. 151 00:05:35,112 --> 00:05:36,792 So you can't necessarily 152 00:05:36,792 --> 00:05:38,622 avoid those particular words. 153 00:05:39,602 --> 00:05:42,272 What's also important in those contexts 154 00:05:42,272 --> 00:05:44,973 is when you do have authority you have 155 00:05:45,104 --> 00:05:46,844 - there's also an exercise of power. 156 00:05:47,714 --> 00:05:50,204 So being able to name someone or 157 00:05:50,204 --> 00:05:52,574 something is an exercise of power. 158 00:05:53,174 --> 00:05:56,084 And so if the words used are not the best 159 00:05:56,084 --> 00:05:58,941 ones, or if it can lead to stereotyping 160 00:05:58,941 --> 00:06:02,209 or to stigma, this is especially 161 00:06:02,359 --> 00:06:05,494 important to consider if there's 162 00:06:05,494 --> 00:06:07,894 power and authority behind the words. 163 00:06:09,318 --> 00:06:10,818 Elysia: So in your paper naming and 164 00:06:10,818 --> 00:06:13,248 describing disability in law, you identify 165 00:06:13,248 --> 00:06:15,395 several different ways in which different 166 00:06:15,395 --> 00:06:17,315 kinds of disabilities have been labeled. 167 00:06:17,555 --> 00:06:19,285 So the four examples you have identified 168 00:06:19,285 --> 00:06:20,795 are the use of the word disease 169 00:06:20,795 --> 00:06:22,985 versus condition, the use of the word 170 00:06:23,035 --> 00:06:25,373 abnormality, the changing labeling of 171 00:06:25,373 --> 00:06:27,893 ASD or autism spectrum disorder and the 172 00:06:27,893 --> 00:06:29,753 labeling of intellectual disabilities. 173 00:06:30,163 --> 00:06:32,153 Would you like to explain firstly, how 174 00:06:32,153 --> 00:06:34,283 the use of the labels disease versus 175 00:06:34,283 --> 00:06:36,203 condition are used in legal settings? 176 00:06:37,595 --> 00:06:39,928 Heloise: Yeah, so we, so more, more 177 00:06:39,984 --> 00:06:42,226 broadly speaking, I think we can make a 178 00:06:42,226 --> 00:06:45,076 distinction between the word condition 179 00:06:45,076 --> 00:06:48,166 and the word disease in the sense that 180 00:06:48,166 --> 00:06:50,686 condition is often thought to be a more 181 00:06:50,686 --> 00:06:54,916 neutral term, whereas disease implies 182 00:06:54,916 --> 00:06:56,776 there could be a problem or there needs 183 00:06:56,776 --> 00:06:59,296 to be medical treatment, for example, 184 00:06:59,296 --> 00:07:01,366 or something that needs to be rectified. 185 00:07:01,996 --> 00:07:04,063 And this is something that, that's 186 00:07:04,063 --> 00:07:06,823 a recurring issue in many types of 187 00:07:06,913 --> 00:07:08,893 discussions that, that take place 188 00:07:08,893 --> 00:07:10,783 surrounding disability because 189 00:07:10,934 --> 00:07:13,004 sometimes what you have is you have 190 00:07:13,004 --> 00:07:16,454 a condition itself, which is not 191 00:07:16,454 --> 00:07:19,724 negative, but there may well be 192 00:07:19,874 --> 00:07:22,394 associated negative health effects. 193 00:07:22,874 --> 00:07:24,494 So one example which we wouldn't think 194 00:07:24,494 --> 00:07:26,504 of as disability would be pregnancy. 195 00:07:26,504 --> 00:07:28,124 So we wouldn't think 196 00:07:28,124 --> 00:07:29,444 pregnancy is a disease. 197 00:07:29,444 --> 00:07:31,424 We don't think it's negative, but you 198 00:07:31,424 --> 00:07:33,494 can have associated negative effects. 199 00:07:33,494 --> 00:07:35,774 You can have gestational diabetes. 200 00:07:36,464 --> 00:07:39,276 So we can say gestational diabetes is bad. 201 00:07:39,636 --> 00:07:40,776 We don't want that. 202 00:07:40,956 --> 00:07:41,556 But it doesn't mean the 203 00:07:41,556 --> 00:07:43,338 pregnancy itself is bad. 204 00:07:43,338 --> 00:07:44,328 You can separate it out. 205 00:07:45,348 --> 00:07:46,608 So another example that could 206 00:07:46,608 --> 00:07:49,368 be given is Down syndrome. 207 00:07:49,698 --> 00:07:52,248 So people with Down Syndrome 208 00:07:52,278 --> 00:07:54,318 are more likely to have certain 209 00:07:54,378 --> 00:07:56,838 negative health effects, but you 210 00:07:56,838 --> 00:07:59,028 can say that some of those health 211 00:07:59,028 --> 00:08:01,038 problems are negative in themselves 212 00:08:01,458 --> 00:08:03,738 without saying that Down Syndrome 213 00:08:03,738 --> 00:08:05,958 itself is a condition is negative. 214 00:08:06,678 --> 00:08:07,488 Elysia: it does seem as though the 215 00:08:07,488 --> 00:08:09,258 word condition has a more neutral 216 00:08:09,618 --> 00:08:11,748 kind of presentation as opposed 217 00:08:11,748 --> 00:08:13,703 to the more negative word disease. 218 00:08:14,003 --> 00:08:15,323 Um, but specifically would you like to 219 00:08:15,323 --> 00:08:17,243 elaborate on some of the potentially 220 00:08:17,243 --> 00:08:19,463 misleading references to health with 221 00:08:19,463 --> 00:08:20,843 regards to these words of disease and 222 00:08:20,843 --> 00:08:22,493 condition in a legal context, such as 223 00:08:22,493 --> 00:08:24,473 in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board-- 224 00:08:24,593 --> 00:08:24,713 Heloise: Mm-hmm. 225 00:08:24,713 --> 00:08:26,123 Elysia: And Parkinson v St. James and 226 00:08:26,123 --> 00:08:28,703 Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust? 227 00:08:29,551 --> 00:08:30,031 Heloise: Sure. 228 00:08:30,031 --> 00:08:31,861 So you have some cases 229 00:08:31,921 --> 00:08:34,801 involving a failed sterilization 230 00:08:34,801 --> 00:08:37,201 procedure, where subsequently 231 00:08:37,201 --> 00:08:39,181 there was the birth of a child. 232 00:08:39,781 --> 00:08:42,931 And so in McFarlane, for example, 233 00:08:42,931 --> 00:08:44,791 there was a reference to the 234 00:08:44,791 --> 00:08:46,321 child being born healthy. 235 00:08:46,321 --> 00:08:47,041 In fact, there were many 236 00:08:47,191 --> 00:08:49,141 references throughout the case 237 00:08:49,141 --> 00:08:51,236 to there being a healthy child, 238 00:08:51,236 --> 00:08:52,826 which seemed to be important. 239 00:08:53,111 --> 00:08:56,165 In Parkinson, it was a disabled child who 240 00:08:56,165 --> 00:09:00,881 was born, so I suppose there's an issue 241 00:09:00,881 --> 00:09:03,573 there in understanding what we mean by the 242 00:09:03,573 --> 00:09:06,273 term healthy, because as I was explaining 243 00:09:06,273 --> 00:09:08,073 before with the term condition, so you 244 00:09:08,073 --> 00:09:10,083 could have a disability or you could 245 00:09:10,083 --> 00:09:13,023 have a condition which is not negative in 246 00:09:13,023 --> 00:09:15,683 itself and where you actually are healthy. 247 00:09:16,523 --> 00:09:18,273 So you could have Down syndrome and 248 00:09:18,273 --> 00:09:20,943 be healthy, and in fact, many people 249 00:09:20,943 --> 00:09:23,313 can be proud of their disabilities. 250 00:09:23,313 --> 00:09:24,903 Or there's a lot of discussion 251 00:09:24,903 --> 00:09:26,209 about this in the philosophical 252 00:09:26,209 --> 00:09:27,559 literature about what it means 253 00:09:27,559 --> 00:09:29,689 and how you can define disability. 254 00:09:29,719 --> 00:09:31,976 And so many people can identify 255 00:09:31,976 --> 00:09:33,671 with their condition and be proud 256 00:09:33,671 --> 00:09:37,536 of it and you can have a disability 257 00:09:37,536 --> 00:09:39,209 and nevertheless be healthy. 258 00:09:39,209 --> 00:09:42,404 So this is an example where the 259 00:09:42,404 --> 00:09:44,594 terminology used might not be 260 00:09:44,594 --> 00:09:47,888 ideal and can be misleading. 261 00:09:48,565 --> 00:09:50,613 Of course there, there are a number 262 00:09:50,733 --> 00:09:52,863 of reasons why that might be the case. 263 00:09:52,863 --> 00:09:54,513 Generally, when you're looking at case 264 00:09:54,513 --> 00:09:56,663 law, the judges may have their own 265 00:09:56,663 --> 00:09:58,163 preferred terminology, but it may well 266 00:09:58,163 --> 00:10:01,118 be that certain terms are used by the 267 00:10:01,118 --> 00:10:03,218 parties in the course of argument. 268 00:10:03,571 --> 00:10:08,374 But when you are identifying this language 269 00:10:08,374 --> 00:10:10,963 surrounding disability, if it is in a 270 00:10:11,023 --> 00:10:14,373 case, you have, as I said earlier, a 271 00:10:14,373 --> 00:10:20,069 source of language used, which can be 272 00:10:20,069 --> 00:10:22,409 perceived as being more authoritative, 273 00:10:22,439 --> 00:10:25,347 and that can have stronger effects 274 00:10:25,347 --> 00:10:27,417 or effects of a different nature than 275 00:10:27,417 --> 00:10:29,247 the kind of language that's used in, 276 00:10:29,247 --> 00:10:31,317 for example, a more everyday context. 277 00:10:32,013 --> 00:10:33,093 Elysia: So the second example 278 00:10:33,093 --> 00:10:34,743 you identify in your paper is 279 00:10:34,743 --> 00:10:36,813 the use of the word abnormality. 280 00:10:36,813 --> 00:10:38,193 So what would you say 281 00:10:38,193 --> 00:10:39,723 about that specifically? 282 00:10:40,308 --> 00:10:41,088 Heloise: Sure. 283 00:10:41,118 --> 00:10:44,928 So abnormality is a tricky term because 284 00:10:44,988 --> 00:10:48,184 it could be interpreted as implying a 285 00:10:48,184 --> 00:10:50,494 value judgment or a normative judgment 286 00:10:50,494 --> 00:10:52,054 that there's something wrong, there's 287 00:10:52,054 --> 00:10:54,604 something not normal, but equally it 288 00:10:54,604 --> 00:10:57,184 might not be used with that intention. 289 00:10:57,184 --> 00:10:59,254 It might just be referring to, 290 00:10:59,254 --> 00:11:02,494 statistical deviation, for example. 291 00:11:02,749 --> 00:11:05,779 So , it's a term I think is important 292 00:11:05,809 --> 00:11:09,673 to pay attention to and to take those 293 00:11:09,673 --> 00:11:12,403 factors into account and think about 294 00:11:12,403 --> 00:11:14,893 the context in which the word is used. 295 00:11:15,283 --> 00:11:17,563 If someone is being labeled 296 00:11:17,563 --> 00:11:18,913 as abnormal, that could be 297 00:11:18,973 --> 00:11:20,863 considered to be stigmatizing. 298 00:11:21,643 --> 00:11:24,209 And so it's a term that can, I 299 00:11:24,209 --> 00:11:26,135 think that just merits some thought 300 00:11:26,135 --> 00:11:28,025 and attention when it's used. 301 00:11:29,594 --> 00:11:30,854 Elysia: So in a legal setting, 302 00:11:30,854 --> 00:11:32,834 one of the ways in which the term 303 00:11:32,834 --> 00:11:34,424 abnormality or related terms is 304 00:11:34,424 --> 00:11:36,974 used is in the Abortion Act 1967. 305 00:11:36,974 --> 00:11:37,634 So would you like to talk 306 00:11:37,634 --> 00:11:38,294 a little bit about that? 307 00:11:39,231 --> 00:11:40,011 Heloise: Sure. 308 00:11:40,101 --> 00:11:42,261 So yes, in that statute you have 309 00:11:42,261 --> 00:11:44,331 a specific disability ground. 310 00:11:44,421 --> 00:11:46,735 So, there's provision to allow 311 00:11:46,735 --> 00:11:48,535 for abortion on the grounds of 312 00:11:48,535 --> 00:11:51,445 disability, and there has been some 313 00:11:51,466 --> 00:11:53,585 criticism of the specific language 314 00:11:53,585 --> 00:11:55,385 used in that ground, as well. 315 00:11:55,385 --> 00:11:57,005 So again, leaving aside the legal 316 00:11:57,005 --> 00:11:59,375 effect or issues about abortion more 317 00:11:59,375 --> 00:12:00,875 generally, there, there's also been 318 00:12:00,875 --> 00:12:02,795 attention to the specific language. 319 00:12:02,795 --> 00:12:05,885 So in that particular ground in the 320 00:12:05,885 --> 00:12:08,572 statute, abortion can be lawful, if 321 00:12:09,427 --> 00:12:11,527 there is a substantial risk that if the 322 00:12:11,527 --> 00:12:13,627 child were born, it would suffer from 323 00:12:13,627 --> 00:12:16,777 such physical or mental abnormalities 324 00:12:16,837 --> 00:12:18,817 as to be seriously handicapped. 325 00:12:19,567 --> 00:12:22,117 And so there you have an example 326 00:12:22,117 --> 00:12:24,867 of the word abnormalities used. 327 00:12:24,990 --> 00:12:25,980 There could be criticism 328 00:12:25,980 --> 00:12:29,430 of the word risk or suffer. 329 00:12:29,537 --> 00:12:30,677 Maybe people don't necessarily 330 00:12:31,037 --> 00:12:32,447 suffer from a disability. 331 00:12:32,537 --> 00:12:33,917 And also handicapped is now 332 00:12:33,917 --> 00:12:35,597 considered to be outdated. 333 00:12:35,980 --> 00:12:38,263 So this was raised, for example, in 334 00:12:38,263 --> 00:12:41,263 a recent case in the Court of Appeal 335 00:12:41,623 --> 00:12:44,673 where a person from Mencap, a charity 336 00:12:44,673 --> 00:12:46,323 for people with learning disabilities 337 00:12:46,873 --> 00:12:49,223 referred to some of this problematic 338 00:12:49,223 --> 00:12:52,113 language in the statute as being 339 00:12:52,113 --> 00:12:53,643 a problem with the language itself. 340 00:12:54,554 --> 00:12:56,054 Elysia: You identified the shift in 341 00:12:56,054 --> 00:12:58,934 labeling ASD from autism to autism 342 00:12:58,934 --> 00:13:00,854 spectrum, and rightly point out 343 00:13:00,854 --> 00:13:02,774 the benefits of doing so, such as 344 00:13:02,864 --> 00:13:04,544 acknowledging that each individual on the 345 00:13:04,544 --> 00:13:06,674 spectrum is unique in their presentation 346 00:13:06,674 --> 00:13:08,324 of ASD and how it affects them. 347 00:13:08,684 --> 00:13:10,274 However, the courts have not been 348 00:13:10,274 --> 00:13:12,224 as quick to pick up on this as 349 00:13:12,224 --> 00:13:13,754 you identify in Khan v Meadows. 350 00:13:13,994 --> 00:13:15,074 Why do you think this is the case? 351 00:13:16,097 --> 00:13:16,487 Heloise: Yes. 352 00:13:16,487 --> 00:13:19,127 So in Khan v Meadows, there was 353 00:13:19,217 --> 00:13:21,797 a reference to an individual 354 00:13:21,857 --> 00:13:24,017 as suffering from autism. 355 00:13:24,017 --> 00:13:26,351 So here you have that reference 356 00:13:26,351 --> 00:13:29,461 again to the word suffer which is 357 00:13:29,560 --> 00:13:32,270 unfortunate to be used in this context. 358 00:13:33,260 --> 00:13:34,970 Why the courts use this language 359 00:13:34,970 --> 00:13:36,560 is a difficult question. 360 00:13:36,560 --> 00:13:38,660 It, it may be that it would be helpful 361 00:13:38,660 --> 00:13:40,915 for there to be greater awareness 362 00:13:40,915 --> 00:13:43,855 about the terminology that can be used. 363 00:13:44,315 --> 00:13:45,635 it's important to remember, 364 00:13:45,635 --> 00:13:46,600 of course, that it could 365 00:13:46,600 --> 00:13:48,130 come from a particular judge. 366 00:13:48,130 --> 00:13:50,080 It may also be that parties are 367 00:13:50,380 --> 00:13:52,660 maybe themselves using certain 368 00:13:52,660 --> 00:13:54,670 expressions in the course of argument. 369 00:13:54,793 --> 00:13:56,863 There are a number of examples where you 370 00:13:56,863 --> 00:13:59,863 can look to the way that disability is 371 00:13:59,863 --> 00:14:02,323 referred to or described in judgements 372 00:14:02,323 --> 00:14:04,666 where it would be better if different 373 00:14:04,666 --> 00:14:08,236 formulations were used and no doubt 374 00:14:08,236 --> 00:14:11,416 a greater awareness in general and 375 00:14:11,416 --> 00:14:14,576 society and perhaps in the legal context 376 00:14:14,596 --> 00:14:17,516 could lead to progress in this area. 377 00:14:17,950 --> 00:14:19,305 Elysia: I think the last situation 378 00:14:19,305 --> 00:14:20,775 that you identify is the labeling 379 00:14:20,775 --> 00:14:22,815 of intellectual disabilities, where 380 00:14:22,815 --> 00:14:24,585 some of the most egregious comments 381 00:14:24,585 --> 00:14:26,085 have been made by the judiciary, 382 00:14:26,295 --> 00:14:28,335 including comparing someone with an 383 00:14:28,335 --> 00:14:30,375 intellectual disability to a cabbage. 384 00:14:30,885 --> 00:14:32,385 Uh, there is a widespread use of 385 00:14:32,385 --> 00:14:34,335 terms generally considered offensive, 386 00:14:34,335 --> 00:14:36,705 such as mongoloid or vegetable- 387 00:14:36,855 --> 00:14:36,975 Heloise: Mm-hmm. 388 00:14:37,215 --> 00:14:38,355 Elysia: -Uh, within the judiciary. 389 00:14:38,445 --> 00:14:39,735 So why do you think this might still 390 00:14:39,735 --> 00:14:42,285 be the case, even though most people 391 00:14:42,285 --> 00:14:43,755 would tend to think that these terms 392 00:14:43,755 --> 00:14:46,245 would not be acceptable anymore. 393 00:14:47,362 --> 00:14:47,872 Heloise: Yes. 394 00:14:47,872 --> 00:14:50,842 So it's certainly true in the context 395 00:14:50,872 --> 00:14:52,912 of referring to intellectual disability. 396 00:14:52,912 --> 00:14:54,742 There are some very unfortunate 397 00:14:54,802 --> 00:14:56,302 examples, maybe some of the most 398 00:14:56,302 --> 00:14:58,282 unfortunate examples of language used. 399 00:14:58,882 --> 00:15:01,112 So the reference you, you 400 00:15:01,112 --> 00:15:03,112 made, there to reference to a 401 00:15:03,112 --> 00:15:04,952 cabbage, was from some time ago. 402 00:15:04,982 --> 00:15:06,932 So that was a case from 1981. 403 00:15:07,098 --> 00:15:08,628 We certainly can hope there's been some 404 00:15:08,628 --> 00:15:10,608 evolution in the language that's been 405 00:15:10,608 --> 00:15:14,238 used, but one example of terminology 406 00:15:14,238 --> 00:15:16,698 we still see now, in both the medical 407 00:15:16,698 --> 00:15:20,178 context and still in case law, is 408 00:15:20,178 --> 00:15:22,848 reference to a vegetative state, 409 00:15:23,848 --> 00:15:25,888 or a persistent vegetative state. 410 00:15:26,433 --> 00:15:30,213 And that's used quite commonly 411 00:15:30,263 --> 00:15:32,213 perhaps without much question. 412 00:15:32,213 --> 00:15:33,593 Although when, when you think about it, 413 00:15:33,593 --> 00:15:35,423 it's actually quite insulting, isn't it? 414 00:15:35,423 --> 00:15:37,343 Because it seems quite dehumanizing, 415 00:15:37,343 --> 00:15:39,263 in fact, to use that, that terminology. 416 00:15:39,443 --> 00:15:42,353 Perhaps people think it's not insulting 417 00:15:42,353 --> 00:15:45,233 to the individual, the themselves, if 418 00:15:45,283 --> 00:15:47,753 they are not hearing the terminology. 419 00:15:48,473 --> 00:15:51,353 I think we have seen some progress 420 00:15:51,353 --> 00:15:54,563 and some evolution in the terminology 421 00:15:54,563 --> 00:15:57,143 that's used, but there's definitely room 422 00:15:57,143 --> 00:15:59,423 for more progress and awareness still. 423 00:15:59,916 --> 00:16:00,996 Elysia: Now that we've gone through all 424 00:16:00,996 --> 00:16:03,166 these examples of the way that these 425 00:16:03,166 --> 00:16:04,576 different terms are used in a legal 426 00:16:04,576 --> 00:16:06,526 setting, do you think that firstly 427 00:16:06,526 --> 00:16:08,506 labels do actually have a real impact 428 00:16:08,506 --> 00:16:10,366 on the way that courts treat disability 429 00:16:10,366 --> 00:16:12,436 and therefore people treat disability? 430 00:16:12,706 --> 00:16:14,146 And secondly, do you think that this 431 00:16:14,146 --> 00:16:15,796 is really like the be all and end 432 00:16:15,796 --> 00:16:18,106 all about disability and language? 433 00:16:18,670 --> 00:16:20,470 Heloise: Well, it is a very difficult 434 00:16:20,470 --> 00:16:22,540 issue to deal with problematic 435 00:16:22,590 --> 00:16:26,130 terminology because what can be negative 436 00:16:26,160 --> 00:16:30,330 is not necessarily a meaning inherent 437 00:16:30,330 --> 00:16:32,190 or necessary within the word itself. 438 00:16:32,190 --> 00:16:33,840 It can also be the connotations 439 00:16:33,840 --> 00:16:34,890 that attached to a word. 440 00:16:35,310 --> 00:16:38,715 So I mentioned vegetative before that in 441 00:16:38,715 --> 00:16:40,735 a way, maybe that's inherently negative 442 00:16:40,735 --> 00:16:43,225 if there's reference to vegetable, 443 00:16:43,225 --> 00:16:45,805 it seems dehumanizing, but there are 444 00:16:45,805 --> 00:16:47,695 other words where there's nothing 445 00:16:47,755 --> 00:16:50,455 obviously negative in the word itself. 446 00:16:50,515 --> 00:16:52,735 It's more that they're, or not necessarily 447 00:16:52,735 --> 00:16:54,685 more negative than other words, but it's 448 00:16:54,685 --> 00:16:57,115 the connotations that surround the word. 449 00:16:57,115 --> 00:16:58,320 So it's perceived as an 450 00:16:58,320 --> 00:16:59,670 offensive term, for example. 451 00:17:01,080 --> 00:17:03,840 And that's difficult to deal with 452 00:17:03,840 --> 00:17:05,280 because in the short term, you could 453 00:17:05,280 --> 00:17:07,140 say, right, okay, there are some words 454 00:17:07,140 --> 00:17:08,490 we should avoid, and that's true. 455 00:17:08,490 --> 00:17:10,380 Some words are offensive and we should 456 00:17:10,380 --> 00:17:11,970 just avoid them, and so there could 457 00:17:11,970 --> 00:17:14,550 be greater awareness to avoid them. 458 00:17:15,390 --> 00:17:18,630 But if there continues to be general 459 00:17:19,050 --> 00:17:22,230 prejudice and stigma regarding disabled 460 00:17:22,230 --> 00:17:25,440 people in society, then if we use another 461 00:17:25,440 --> 00:17:27,510 word, which might seem more neutral 462 00:17:27,510 --> 00:17:30,945 now, eventually, negative connotations 463 00:17:30,945 --> 00:17:33,965 can attach to that word as well if 464 00:17:33,965 --> 00:17:36,395 there is general prejudice in society. 465 00:17:36,815 --> 00:17:39,035 So I mentioned earlier the term 466 00:17:39,035 --> 00:17:42,005 condition, which is quite neutral, 467 00:17:42,005 --> 00:17:45,386 but if there is a lot of prejudice 468 00:17:45,446 --> 00:17:47,696 surrounding disabled people, and the 469 00:17:47,696 --> 00:17:50,726 term condition is used, maybe one 470 00:17:50,726 --> 00:17:53,300 day that term will also be associated 471 00:17:53,300 --> 00:17:55,380 with more negative connotations. 472 00:17:55,980 --> 00:18:00,285 So, really, in order to, to 473 00:18:00,285 --> 00:18:02,055 deal with a problem, you need 474 00:18:02,055 --> 00:18:03,765 to have a wider approach. 475 00:18:03,765 --> 00:18:07,575 You need to be looking at ideally changing 476 00:18:07,575 --> 00:18:10,755 attitudes more broadly in society, and so 477 00:18:10,785 --> 00:18:13,245 dealing at a higher level, at a broader 478 00:18:13,245 --> 00:18:16,005 level with combating stigmatization. 479 00:18:16,335 --> 00:18:18,795 So the more we're able to reduce 480 00:18:18,795 --> 00:18:22,040 stigma, prejudice in society, then 481 00:18:22,040 --> 00:18:24,200 the less that's going to come up and 482 00:18:24,260 --> 00:18:26,810 attach itself to particular words. 483 00:18:27,470 --> 00:18:29,480 And again, so that's why also it can be 484 00:18:29,480 --> 00:18:32,600 particularly important to look at words 485 00:18:32,690 --> 00:18:35,535 used in a context where there is more 486 00:18:35,535 --> 00:18:37,875 authority and power, so in the context 487 00:18:37,875 --> 00:18:40,425 of medicine, in law, words that people 488 00:18:40,425 --> 00:18:43,365 are really gonna look to as a first 489 00:18:43,365 --> 00:18:45,495 source or as an authoritative source. 490 00:18:45,495 --> 00:18:47,805 And that can then be used elsewhere. 491 00:18:48,325 --> 00:18:50,495 To really combat the use of 492 00:18:50,495 --> 00:18:53,795 problematic terminology, we can't 493 00:18:53,795 --> 00:18:55,415 just look at words one by one. 494 00:18:55,475 --> 00:18:57,605 You have to also take a broader approach. 495 00:18:58,576 --> 00:19:00,136 Elysia: Thank you so much Dr. Robinson, 496 00:19:00,136 --> 00:19:01,756 for your insightful commentary regarding 497 00:19:01,756 --> 00:19:03,346 the current use of labels within 498 00:19:03,346 --> 00:19:05,656 disability law and outside of it as well. 499 00:19:06,076 --> 00:19:07,696 Before we move on to the next segment 500 00:19:07,696 --> 00:19:09,826 regarding possible reforms of terminology 501 00:19:09,826 --> 00:19:11,896 used with regards to disability, we would 502 00:19:11,896 --> 00:19:13,546 like to express our gratitude for the 503 00:19:13,546 --> 00:19:16,006 generous support of Crown Office Chambers. 504 00:19:26,148 --> 00:19:28,390 Crown Office Chambers is a leading 505 00:19:28,390 --> 00:19:30,640 set consisting of over a hundred 506 00:19:30,640 --> 00:19:32,620 commercial and common law, barristers, 507 00:19:33,040 --> 00:19:35,050 arbitrators, and mediators. 508 00:19:35,710 --> 00:19:37,210 They have just released a short 509 00:19:37,210 --> 00:19:39,880 film introducing their pupils, the 510 00:19:39,880 --> 00:19:42,040 film, as well as other information 511 00:19:42,040 --> 00:19:44,155 about pupillages, can be found on 512 00:19:44,155 --> 00:19:48,295 their website at www.crown office 513 00:19:48,295 --> 00:19:53,335 chambers.com/careers/pupilage. 514 00:19:53,965 --> 00:19:55,525 Thank you Crown Office Chambers. 515 00:20:04,956 --> 00:20:06,096 Elysia: Now we return to the next 516 00:20:06,096 --> 00:20:08,196 segment of our episode today discussing 517 00:20:08,196 --> 00:20:09,846 possible reforms of terminology 518 00:20:09,846 --> 00:20:11,286 used with regards to disability. 519 00:20:11,787 --> 00:20:13,377 To resolve or mitigate the issues 520 00:20:13,377 --> 00:20:15,117 surrounding labeling of disability 521 00:20:15,117 --> 00:20:17,307 within a legal context, your paper, 522 00:20:17,307 --> 00:20:18,957 "Naming and Describing Disability in 523 00:20:18,957 --> 00:20:20,757 the Law" explores two ways in which 524 00:20:20,757 --> 00:20:22,857 descriptions of disability can be handled. 525 00:20:23,157 --> 00:20:24,717 Firstly, the neutral approach, and 526 00:20:24,717 --> 00:20:26,187 secondly, the targeted approach. 527 00:20:26,707 --> 00:20:27,627 Would you like to elaborate on 528 00:20:27,627 --> 00:20:28,917 the first approach of presenting 529 00:20:28,917 --> 00:20:30,807 information in a value neutral way? 530 00:20:32,036 --> 00:20:32,426 Heloise: Yes. 531 00:20:32,426 --> 00:20:35,066 So there's a lot of discussion 532 00:20:35,066 --> 00:20:37,556 in the philosophical literature 533 00:20:37,856 --> 00:20:40,856 about how to define disability or 534 00:20:40,856 --> 00:20:42,896 the right model of disability or 535 00:20:42,896 --> 00:20:44,906 conception or theory of disability. 536 00:20:44,906 --> 00:20:46,285 It's one of the themes, the issues 537 00:20:46,285 --> 00:20:47,995 that's getting the most attention in the 538 00:20:47,995 --> 00:20:49,675 philosophical literature on disability. 539 00:20:50,365 --> 00:20:54,175 And it's a very difficult question. 540 00:20:54,225 --> 00:20:55,611 It might seem quite obvious, it's, 541 00:20:55,611 --> 00:20:57,441 it's a bit like defining health and 542 00:20:57,471 --> 00:20:59,391 health notoriously -we all think we 543 00:20:59,391 --> 00:21:01,251 know what it means, but it's very 544 00:21:01,251 --> 00:21:03,771 notoriously difficult to actually define. 545 00:21:04,861 --> 00:21:07,201 One way to look at it is we might need 546 00:21:07,251 --> 00:21:10,041 to agree, you know, on how we understand 547 00:21:10,041 --> 00:21:12,291 disability and whether we can also 548 00:21:12,291 --> 00:21:14,421 understand disability in the absence 549 00:21:14,421 --> 00:21:16,461 of any particular value judgments 550 00:21:16,461 --> 00:21:18,671 or whether that's possible or not. 551 00:21:19,241 --> 00:21:20,981 But another approach might be to 552 00:21:20,981 --> 00:21:24,491 say we can look at more specific 553 00:21:24,701 --> 00:21:26,921 narrow or targeted issues. 554 00:21:27,341 --> 00:21:29,081 And especially perhaps in a legal 555 00:21:29,081 --> 00:21:31,871 context, we might say there might be 556 00:21:31,871 --> 00:21:33,551 some instances where we don't necessarily 557 00:21:33,551 --> 00:21:37,361 need to agree in an abstract way on 558 00:21:37,421 --> 00:21:40,151 how we define disability, but we might 559 00:21:40,151 --> 00:21:42,281 think, okay, here we're concerned with 560 00:21:42,746 --> 00:21:45,686 pain or we're concerned with mobility 561 00:21:45,686 --> 00:21:47,996 issues and so on, or in a medical context 562 00:21:47,996 --> 00:21:49,376 too, we might think we're concerned 563 00:21:49,376 --> 00:21:51,876 with these particular targeted issues. 564 00:21:52,446 --> 00:21:56,766 And so then we can leave aside 565 00:21:57,711 --> 00:22:00,441 broader complications about how you 566 00:22:00,441 --> 00:22:02,571 define disability or whether there is 567 00:22:02,571 --> 00:22:06,471 something good or bad in being disabled. 568 00:22:06,471 --> 00:22:08,511 If it's something that's a positive 569 00:22:08,511 --> 00:22:11,151 identity or something that is 570 00:22:11,151 --> 00:22:12,531 associated with medical treatment 571 00:22:12,531 --> 00:22:14,631 and so on, we can leave aside some of 572 00:22:14,631 --> 00:22:16,341 those complications if you're looking 573 00:22:16,341 --> 00:22:18,891 at specific, more targeted issues. 574 00:22:19,663 --> 00:22:19,873 Elysia: Okay. 575 00:22:19,873 --> 00:22:21,223 So just zooming in a little 576 00:22:21,223 --> 00:22:22,873 bit on the neutral approach. 577 00:22:22,873 --> 00:22:24,673 So what exactly would that look like? 578 00:22:24,703 --> 00:22:26,113 So for example, you mentioned that 579 00:22:26,113 --> 00:22:28,723 NHS guidance on prenatal testing aims 580 00:22:28,723 --> 00:22:30,733 to provide more balanced information 581 00:22:30,733 --> 00:22:32,023 and has attempted to move towards 582 00:22:32,023 --> 00:22:34,003 a more balanced language using 583 00:22:34,003 --> 00:22:36,313 chance versus risk of a baby being 584 00:22:36,313 --> 00:22:37,933 born with a particular condition. 585 00:22:39,375 --> 00:22:41,985 Heloise: Yeah, so one context where 586 00:22:41,985 --> 00:22:45,015 it is very relevant to think about 587 00:22:45,015 --> 00:22:49,062 how information is provided and 588 00:22:49,062 --> 00:22:50,675 whether the approach to disability 589 00:22:50,675 --> 00:22:53,885 is neutral or implies certain value 590 00:22:53,885 --> 00:22:57,215 judgments is in the context of prenatal 591 00:22:57,215 --> 00:22:59,795 testing and information provided 592 00:22:59,855 --> 00:23:02,795 to parents about the chance that 593 00:23:02,795 --> 00:23:05,435 their child will be born disabled. 594 00:23:05,929 --> 00:23:09,639 In that context, a recurring criticism 595 00:23:10,059 --> 00:23:13,899 is that the information provided can 596 00:23:13,899 --> 00:23:16,179 be overly negative about disability. 597 00:23:16,179 --> 00:23:17,649 So the parents will be told, there's 598 00:23:17,649 --> 00:23:18,969 a chance your child will have this 599 00:23:18,969 --> 00:23:20,973 particular condition, this particular 600 00:23:20,973 --> 00:23:24,768 disability, and it's thought to be 601 00:23:24,768 --> 00:23:27,138 important to provide this information, 602 00:23:27,168 --> 00:23:29,658 often to promote reproductive autonomy 603 00:23:29,658 --> 00:23:32,508 and to give the pregnant woman an the 604 00:23:32,508 --> 00:23:34,728 choice to have or not have an abortion: 605 00:23:34,908 --> 00:23:36,318 an abortion on the grounds of disability. 606 00:23:36,948 --> 00:23:37,878 So it's often thought that it's 607 00:23:37,878 --> 00:23:40,378 important to provide accurate 608 00:23:40,378 --> 00:23:43,463 information in terms of the chance or 609 00:23:43,463 --> 00:23:45,533 the risk or the diagnosis, and also 610 00:23:45,533 --> 00:23:47,153 information about the condition itself. 611 00:23:47,450 --> 00:23:49,070 But one of the difficulties is how 612 00:23:49,070 --> 00:23:50,540 can you provide this information 613 00:23:50,540 --> 00:23:52,438 in a way which is neutral or is it 614 00:23:52,438 --> 00:23:54,298 possible to, to really provide this 615 00:23:54,298 --> 00:23:56,878 information in a way that is neutral? 616 00:23:57,568 --> 00:24:00,533 And so a recurring criticism is that 617 00:24:01,118 --> 00:24:03,518 the information can be overly negative. 618 00:24:03,548 --> 00:24:06,518 It can maybe, there can be a 619 00:24:06,518 --> 00:24:10,318 discussion of certain negative sides 620 00:24:10,378 --> 00:24:13,048 associated with raising a child 621 00:24:13,148 --> 00:24:15,518 with a particular disability, but 622 00:24:15,518 --> 00:24:17,705 no mention of some positive sides. 623 00:24:18,935 --> 00:24:23,945 So there has been recently some efforts 624 00:24:24,095 --> 00:24:26,940 to try to provide with, it's often 625 00:24:26,940 --> 00:24:28,950 called more balanced information, 626 00:24:28,950 --> 00:24:30,570 more neutral, more balanced. 627 00:24:30,676 --> 00:24:32,716 So there has been, for example, a 628 00:24:32,716 --> 00:24:35,096 change in, instead of referring to a 629 00:24:35,096 --> 00:24:37,136 risk that the child will be born with 630 00:24:37,136 --> 00:24:39,486 a particular condition, guidance might 631 00:24:39,486 --> 00:24:42,006 say there's a chance that the child 632 00:24:42,006 --> 00:24:43,596 be born with a particular condition, 633 00:24:43,596 --> 00:24:46,116 which seems to be a more neutral term. 634 00:24:47,316 --> 00:24:50,646 So that is seen by many 635 00:24:50,646 --> 00:24:51,606 people as an improvement. 636 00:24:51,636 --> 00:24:54,156 Of course, it's not entirely neutral 637 00:24:54,246 --> 00:24:56,136 because the fact that you're being 638 00:24:56,136 --> 00:24:58,266 informed that there's a chance that 639 00:24:58,266 --> 00:24:59,556 your child will have this particular 640 00:24:59,556 --> 00:25:01,206 condition, it's of course implying 641 00:25:01,206 --> 00:25:03,036 that you need to think about it and 642 00:25:03,036 --> 00:25:04,596 that there would be a good reason 643 00:25:05,241 --> 00:25:06,981 not to give birth to this child. 644 00:25:07,311 --> 00:25:10,321 So it's not entirely neutral given 645 00:25:10,321 --> 00:25:12,781 that it takes place in the context of 646 00:25:12,781 --> 00:25:15,046 testing where routine prenatal testing 647 00:25:15,086 --> 00:25:16,866 implies there's a reason for testing and 648 00:25:16,866 --> 00:25:18,426 there's a reason to think about whether 649 00:25:18,426 --> 00:25:19,716 or not you want to have the child. 650 00:25:20,072 --> 00:25:23,282 But the specific word chance in this 651 00:25:23,282 --> 00:25:25,172 context is considered, for example, to 652 00:25:25,172 --> 00:25:28,412 be less negative than the word risk. 653 00:25:29,149 --> 00:25:30,259 Elysia: So in your previous answer, 654 00:25:30,259 --> 00:25:31,999 you do touch upon some of the possible 655 00:25:31,999 --> 00:25:33,829 issues or objections with the approach, 656 00:25:34,069 --> 00:25:35,559 but would you mind fleshing it out, what 657 00:25:35,559 --> 00:25:37,779 exactly the possible issues or objections 658 00:25:37,779 --> 00:25:39,099 with the neutral approach might be? 659 00:25:40,052 --> 00:25:40,412 Heloise: Sure. 660 00:25:40,412 --> 00:25:43,622 So for example, there's a guidance that 661 00:25:43,622 --> 00:25:48,302 describes Down syndrome where both what 662 00:25:48,498 --> 00:25:50,088 might be considered to be positive and 663 00:25:50,088 --> 00:25:52,068 negative characteristics are listed. 664 00:25:52,908 --> 00:25:55,578 So there you have an example of what 665 00:25:55,578 --> 00:25:58,638 might seem to be a more balanced approach. 666 00:25:58,858 --> 00:26:00,538 So the guidance, for example, says that 667 00:26:00,538 --> 00:26:02,428 children with this condition will have 668 00:26:02,428 --> 00:26:04,588 a learning disability and will be more 669 00:26:04,588 --> 00:26:06,448 likely to have certain health problems. 670 00:26:06,823 --> 00:26:08,293 But then it also mentions that 671 00:26:08,293 --> 00:26:09,343 they can have a good quality 672 00:26:09,343 --> 00:26:11,563 of life and attend school. 673 00:26:12,103 --> 00:26:15,613 So this can be an example where it seems 674 00:26:15,613 --> 00:26:20,203 that more balanced information can be 675 00:26:20,233 --> 00:26:23,053 provided where the information provided 676 00:26:23,053 --> 00:26:26,878 is not only negative, but it is difficult 677 00:26:26,878 --> 00:26:28,498 if you're trying to provide information 678 00:26:28,498 --> 00:26:30,388 in a neutral way, it is really difficult 679 00:26:30,388 --> 00:26:33,780 because how do you know how many positive 680 00:26:33,780 --> 00:26:35,940 or negative aspects would you mention? 681 00:26:36,240 --> 00:26:37,500 We don't normally do this for 682 00:26:37,500 --> 00:26:39,600 most people, for most babies, we 683 00:26:39,600 --> 00:26:41,070 don't list positive and negative 684 00:26:41,070 --> 00:26:42,570 features about someone's life. 685 00:26:43,250 --> 00:26:44,840 To provide more balanced information 686 00:26:44,840 --> 00:26:48,927 might seem to be making a move towards 687 00:26:49,007 --> 00:26:50,717 a less negative approach to disability 688 00:26:50,717 --> 00:26:52,397 in the context of prenatal testing. 689 00:26:52,787 --> 00:26:54,527 But at the same time, it's not entirely 690 00:26:54,527 --> 00:26:56,653 neutral, especially since one way 691 00:26:56,653 --> 00:26:59,731 to interpret it is that if you hear 692 00:26:59,731 --> 00:27:01,441 information like that, it will sound 693 00:27:01,441 --> 00:27:03,661 like the child will have certain negative 694 00:27:03,661 --> 00:27:05,611 traits that other children won't have. 695 00:27:06,721 --> 00:27:07,801 And then the positive traits 696 00:27:07,801 --> 00:27:09,061 are ones which most children 697 00:27:09,061 --> 00:27:10,141 would have anyway really. 698 00:27:10,141 --> 00:27:13,771 So it sort of implies that that overall 699 00:27:13,771 --> 00:27:15,811 there is still something negative. 700 00:27:15,934 --> 00:27:20,809 A better approach might be to, if 701 00:27:20,809 --> 00:27:23,269 you're listing negative traits, 702 00:27:23,779 --> 00:27:26,309 to also list positive traits that 703 00:27:26,309 --> 00:27:27,989 are specific to the condition. 704 00:27:27,989 --> 00:27:29,189 So mentioning that the child will 705 00:27:29,189 --> 00:27:31,739 probably attend school is not specific 706 00:27:31,739 --> 00:27:33,299 to Down Syndrome and most children attend 707 00:27:33,299 --> 00:27:35,549 school, but perhaps something which 708 00:27:35,549 --> 00:27:37,679 is especially positive and associated 709 00:27:37,679 --> 00:27:39,899 with Down Syndrome and not with most 710 00:27:39,899 --> 00:27:42,199 children could also be provided. 711 00:27:42,528 --> 00:27:44,298 So that's, I I think it's, this is 712 00:27:44,298 --> 00:27:45,918 really tricky because it's an example 713 00:27:45,918 --> 00:27:48,888 where your information is provided. 714 00:27:49,608 --> 00:27:51,888 If the objective is for the information to 715 00:27:51,888 --> 00:27:54,948 be accurate and balanced and neutral, it's 716 00:27:54,948 --> 00:27:57,048 important to think about these issues. 717 00:27:57,348 --> 00:27:58,428 But equally, of course it will 718 00:27:58,428 --> 00:28:00,738 never entirely be neutral. 719 00:28:01,458 --> 00:28:03,858 There's no entirely neutral way of 720 00:28:03,858 --> 00:28:08,928 presenting this information and, really, 721 00:28:08,958 --> 00:28:11,478 given the wider context in which it's 722 00:28:11,478 --> 00:28:13,938 provided, you could say that overall 723 00:28:13,938 --> 00:28:15,648 there, the message being sent is still 724 00:28:15,648 --> 00:28:18,588 that there's a good reason to consider 725 00:28:18,588 --> 00:28:19,938 avoiding the birth of the child. 726 00:28:21,729 --> 00:28:22,749 Elysia: So moving on to the 727 00:28:22,749 --> 00:28:24,279 second approach, which is the 728 00:28:24,279 --> 00:28:25,599 targeted approach which seeks to 729 00:28:25,599 --> 00:28:27,339 address specific ethical concerns. 730 00:28:27,549 --> 00:28:28,839 So you did talk about this in the 731 00:28:28,839 --> 00:28:30,159 beginning of this segment where 732 00:28:30,159 --> 00:28:31,895 you talked about how people want to 733 00:28:31,895 --> 00:28:33,485 address specific concerns, so such as 734 00:28:33,485 --> 00:28:35,075 reduced mobility and things like that. 735 00:28:35,345 --> 00:28:36,545 So would you mind elaborating 736 00:28:36,545 --> 00:28:37,985 on what that would look like as 737 00:28:37,985 --> 00:28:39,575 compared to the neutral approach? 738 00:28:40,711 --> 00:28:41,281 Heloise: Yes. 739 00:28:41,341 --> 00:28:43,261 Well, one thing that can be done is 740 00:28:43,261 --> 00:28:46,171 to distinguish between cases where 741 00:28:46,231 --> 00:28:47,791 you can have a condition that can be 742 00:28:47,791 --> 00:28:50,701 cured and a condition that is lifelong. 743 00:28:51,091 --> 00:28:53,891 So if you have a condition with a 744 00:28:53,891 --> 00:28:55,991 number of health problems that can 745 00:28:55,991 --> 00:28:57,971 be treated or that can be cured, 746 00:28:58,461 --> 00:28:59,961 maybe a targeted approach can be 747 00:28:59,961 --> 00:29:02,031 taken where you refer to specific 748 00:29:02,031 --> 00:29:04,059 problems and how to deal with them. 749 00:29:04,629 --> 00:29:07,719 But if you have a lifelong condition, 750 00:29:08,049 --> 00:29:11,139 it might be especially important to 751 00:29:11,139 --> 00:29:13,209 refer if there are negative aspects 752 00:29:13,209 --> 00:29:14,739 to refer to positive aspects as 753 00:29:14,739 --> 00:29:16,869 well, and to bear in mind that with 754 00:29:16,869 --> 00:29:20,919 a lifelong condition, it may affect 755 00:29:20,919 --> 00:29:23,829 more a person's sense of identity. 756 00:29:24,339 --> 00:29:27,639 And so if negative information is given 757 00:29:28,089 --> 00:29:31,584 about a lifelong condition, it might be 758 00:29:31,584 --> 00:29:33,804 interpreted as not just being negative 759 00:29:34,104 --> 00:29:36,599 with respect to something that could 760 00:29:36,604 --> 00:29:39,014 be separated out, and health problems 761 00:29:39,014 --> 00:29:40,664 as something separate, but that can 762 00:29:40,664 --> 00:29:42,764 attach to the person themselves. 763 00:29:43,124 --> 00:29:45,861 So I think there it can be important 764 00:29:45,861 --> 00:29:47,671 to bear in mind the nature of the 765 00:29:47,671 --> 00:29:48,991 condition you're dealing with. 766 00:29:50,073 --> 00:29:51,573 Elysia: So what are some possible issues 767 00:29:51,573 --> 00:29:53,853 or objections with the targeted approach? 768 00:29:55,010 --> 00:29:57,820 Heloise: Well, I think in some 769 00:29:57,820 --> 00:30:02,140 contexts we can look at very specific 770 00:30:02,200 --> 00:30:04,080 issues and we don't necessarily need 771 00:30:04,080 --> 00:30:06,360 to ask, is this disability or not? 772 00:30:06,780 --> 00:30:10,140 We can refer to something more specific. 773 00:30:10,740 --> 00:30:13,567 I think more broadly though, it can 774 00:30:13,567 --> 00:30:16,507 be helpful for a number of reasons to 775 00:30:16,507 --> 00:30:19,397 ask whether we're generally dealing 776 00:30:19,397 --> 00:30:21,787 with disability and how we understand 777 00:30:21,787 --> 00:30:24,477 disability more broadly in society. 778 00:30:24,927 --> 00:30:27,177 So although there can be different 779 00:30:27,177 --> 00:30:29,727 specific issues, they can be tied 780 00:30:29,727 --> 00:30:31,497 together in certain important ways. 781 00:30:31,497 --> 00:30:33,927 And so it's important to see, I suppose 782 00:30:33,927 --> 00:30:35,907 the, the broader picture as well. 783 00:30:36,807 --> 00:30:39,387 So sometimes referring to 784 00:30:39,387 --> 00:30:41,127 specific issues is helpful. 785 00:30:41,398 --> 00:30:43,074 But at the same time, bearing in 786 00:30:43,074 --> 00:30:45,234 mind the links between specific 787 00:30:45,234 --> 00:30:48,204 issues or what a broader approach 788 00:30:48,444 --> 00:30:51,014 can achieve will also have benefits. 789 00:30:52,256 --> 00:30:53,876 Elysia: In your paper, you've identified 790 00:30:53,876 --> 00:30:55,646 a recent case in which the courts have 791 00:30:55,676 --> 00:30:57,686 attempted a balanced description, which 792 00:30:57,686 --> 00:30:59,486 is Crowter v Secretary of State for Health 793 00:30:59,486 --> 00:31:01,346 and Social Care, which you've also written 794 00:31:01,346 --> 00:31:03,056 an article about titled "Discrimination 795 00:31:03,056 --> 00:31:05,506 in Abortion Law and Message the Law 796 00:31:05,506 --> 00:31:08,126 is Sending: R (Crowter) v Secretary 797 00:31:08,126 --> 00:31:10,136 of State for Health and Social Care." 798 00:31:10,616 --> 00:31:11,456 Would you mind telling us 799 00:31:11,456 --> 00:31:12,716 what happened in this case? 800 00:31:13,499 --> 00:31:14,009 Heloise: Yes. 801 00:31:14,009 --> 00:31:16,019 So one of the reasons why the case 802 00:31:16,019 --> 00:31:19,529 was really interesting is that it was 803 00:31:19,529 --> 00:31:21,299 in a sense about what you could call 804 00:31:21,299 --> 00:31:23,369 the expressivist argument, which has 805 00:31:23,369 --> 00:31:24,989 been discussed extensively in the 806 00:31:24,989 --> 00:31:28,199 literature on philosophy on bioethics. 807 00:31:28,829 --> 00:31:31,199 The expressivist argument is essentially 808 00:31:31,199 --> 00:31:34,079 that prenatal testing and abortion on 809 00:31:34,079 --> 00:31:36,635 the grounds of disability expresses a 810 00:31:36,635 --> 00:31:39,365 negative message about disabled people. 811 00:31:39,365 --> 00:31:42,035 It sends a message that they're less 812 00:31:42,035 --> 00:31:44,075 welcome in society, for example, 813 00:31:44,075 --> 00:31:45,737 or that society might think, 814 00:31:45,737 --> 00:31:47,207 or some people might think that 815 00:31:47,207 --> 00:31:49,217 their lives are less worthwhile. 816 00:31:50,427 --> 00:31:53,757 So that's been discussed extensively 817 00:31:53,757 --> 00:31:55,197 in the philosophical literature. 818 00:31:55,197 --> 00:31:56,067 There's debate about it. 819 00:31:56,067 --> 00:31:57,867 Not everyone agrees with the argument. 820 00:31:58,197 --> 00:31:59,427 What's particularly interesting 821 00:31:59,427 --> 00:32:01,407 is that this essentially was 822 00:32:01,510 --> 00:32:03,550 the argument that came to court. 823 00:32:03,838 --> 00:32:05,723 There wasn't any reference in the 824 00:32:05,753 --> 00:32:07,793 case to the philosophical literature. 825 00:32:07,793 --> 00:32:09,443 I guess that's not, not surprising. 826 00:32:09,460 --> 00:32:13,160 But also what I should say is, one 827 00:32:13,160 --> 00:32:14,700 difficulty with the expressivist 828 00:32:14,720 --> 00:32:18,020 argument is we might ask who 829 00:32:18,020 --> 00:32:19,490 is expressing the message. 830 00:32:19,502 --> 00:32:22,383 So if it's the parents or the pregnant 831 00:32:22,383 --> 00:32:24,963 woman herself, we might think, well. 832 00:32:25,393 --> 00:32:28,093 If an individual pregnant woman decides 833 00:32:28,093 --> 00:32:29,473 to have an abortion on the grounds 834 00:32:29,473 --> 00:32:32,173 of disability, she isn't necessarily 835 00:32:32,173 --> 00:32:34,333 trying to express a wider message 836 00:32:34,333 --> 00:32:36,343 about disabled people in general. 837 00:32:36,343 --> 00:32:37,963 She might be making a decision based 838 00:32:37,963 --> 00:32:40,183 on her own personal circumstances. 839 00:32:40,183 --> 00:32:42,073 She might be taking many different factors 840 00:32:42,073 --> 00:32:43,603 into account, so she's not trying to 841 00:32:43,608 --> 00:32:45,778 necessarily say, other people should 842 00:32:45,778 --> 00:32:48,183 do the same thing as me or making a 843 00:32:48,183 --> 00:32:50,253 general statement about disability, it 844 00:32:50,253 --> 00:32:51,843 might seem like a personal decision. 845 00:32:52,173 --> 00:32:53,373 So that's one problem with 846 00:32:53,373 --> 00:32:54,453 the expressivist argument. 847 00:32:55,413 --> 00:32:57,183 But if the message is coming from the 848 00:32:57,183 --> 00:32:59,283 law itself, so that was the issue in 849 00:32:59,283 --> 00:33:00,963 Crowter, then it's different because 850 00:33:00,963 --> 00:33:02,883 if we think it's the law or it's the 851 00:33:02,883 --> 00:33:05,013 state that's sending the message that 852 00:33:05,013 --> 00:33:07,250 there's an especially good reason to 853 00:33:07,255 --> 00:33:09,410 avoid the birth of disabled children, 854 00:33:09,860 --> 00:33:12,290 then it could be more concerning. 855 00:33:13,715 --> 00:33:16,505 One thing I should say as well, and 856 00:33:16,505 --> 00:33:18,965 this did not come out clearly from 857 00:33:18,965 --> 00:33:20,615 the case if you read the case, but 858 00:33:21,225 --> 00:33:23,955 this is not in fact a sort of pro-life 859 00:33:23,955 --> 00:33:26,055 or pro-life or pro-choice issue. 860 00:33:26,475 --> 00:33:29,415 So you can take issue with a negative 861 00:33:29,415 --> 00:33:33,780 message in the law without necessarily 862 00:33:34,155 --> 00:33:36,855 thinking that access to abortion 863 00:33:36,885 --> 00:33:38,865 should be, needs to be restricted. 864 00:33:39,198 --> 00:33:41,382 So right now the law singles 865 00:33:41,382 --> 00:33:43,152 out disability as a very 866 00:33:43,152 --> 00:33:46,152 specific ground for abortion. 867 00:33:46,812 --> 00:33:48,792 There are other reasons a woman 868 00:33:48,792 --> 00:33:49,932 might want to have an abortion that 869 00:33:49,932 --> 00:33:52,062 are, that are not listed in the law. 870 00:33:52,288 --> 00:33:55,858 If you had, for example, a more liberal 871 00:33:55,858 --> 00:33:57,418 approach to the law and abortion, if, 872 00:33:57,418 --> 00:33:59,518 for example, a woman could just have 873 00:33:59,698 --> 00:34:03,193 an abortion for any reason, then you 874 00:34:03,193 --> 00:34:05,683 wouldn't have disability singled out. 875 00:34:05,803 --> 00:34:08,023 So, in practice there could be abortions 876 00:34:08,023 --> 00:34:10,783 on the grounds of disability, and that 877 00:34:10,783 --> 00:34:12,973 may well reflect a personal decision 878 00:34:13,393 --> 00:34:15,223 and the law wouldn't be singling it out. 879 00:34:15,293 --> 00:34:17,313 So it was, it was a very interesting 880 00:34:17,363 --> 00:34:20,617 and somewhat complicated case, but one 881 00:34:20,617 --> 00:34:22,327 of the reasons why it was interesting 882 00:34:22,357 --> 00:34:24,247 is that it was really looking at this 883 00:34:24,247 --> 00:34:28,327 expressivist argument as tied to a message 884 00:34:28,327 --> 00:34:30,577 coming from the law itself and coming 885 00:34:30,577 --> 00:34:33,217 from the state itself, which is more 886 00:34:33,217 --> 00:34:35,767 concerning, but equally, it wasn't in fact 887 00:34:35,767 --> 00:34:38,137 a, a pro-life, pro-choice sort of issue. 888 00:34:39,781 --> 00:34:40,956 Elysia: Yeah, so the case was very 889 00:34:40,956 --> 00:34:42,666 interesting for the kind of arguments 890 00:34:42,816 --> 00:34:44,856 that both parties brought to the table. 891 00:34:44,911 --> 00:34:47,476 But would you'd like to summarize for us 892 00:34:47,496 --> 00:34:50,316 basically what the outcome was of Crowter? 893 00:34:52,687 --> 00:34:54,757 Heloise: Yeah, so the case was dismissed. 894 00:34:54,757 --> 00:34:55,567 So the appellants weren't 895 00:34:55,567 --> 00:34:56,887 successful in their case. 896 00:34:56,987 --> 00:34:59,687 Essentially, the central reason in the 897 00:34:59,687 --> 00:35:04,010 lead judgment was that the law on abortion 898 00:35:04,010 --> 00:35:07,310 is not concerned with disabled people. 899 00:35:08,180 --> 00:35:10,220 It's just concerned with 900 00:35:10,370 --> 00:35:11,780 the unborn, with the fetus. 901 00:35:12,530 --> 00:35:14,420 So it's not sending a negative 902 00:35:14,420 --> 00:35:15,830 message about disabled people 903 00:35:15,830 --> 00:35:16,987 because it's not about disabled 904 00:35:16,987 --> 00:35:18,277 people, it's about the fetus. 905 00:35:19,147 --> 00:35:22,227 So, with respect, I don't think it's 906 00:35:22,227 --> 00:35:25,257 a very convincing interpretation. 907 00:35:25,707 --> 00:35:27,927 Clearly, the ground is about 908 00:35:27,927 --> 00:35:30,207 preventing the birth of disabled 909 00:35:30,207 --> 00:35:31,887 children, about the child. 910 00:35:31,887 --> 00:35:33,897 In fact, the law specifically refers 911 00:35:34,032 --> 00:35:36,402 to the, it uses the words, the child. 912 00:35:36,569 --> 00:35:37,559 I don't think anyone is really 913 00:35:37,559 --> 00:35:39,299 concerned about whether there's 914 00:35:39,809 --> 00:35:41,429 a disabled fetus, whether there's 915 00:35:41,479 --> 00:35:43,095 disability only in the womb. 916 00:35:43,095 --> 00:35:44,505 So really the provision is about 917 00:35:44,505 --> 00:35:46,665 preventing the birth of a disabled child. 918 00:35:47,325 --> 00:35:48,615 So there's much more that can be said 919 00:35:48,615 --> 00:35:50,175 about it, but certainly I think that 920 00:35:50,175 --> 00:35:52,065 central reason is unfortunately not very 921 00:35:52,275 --> 00:35:54,255 convincing as an interpretation of the way 922 00:35:54,255 --> 00:35:56,795 we can understand the law in its message. 923 00:35:58,240 --> 00:35:58,750 Elysia: I see. 924 00:35:58,750 --> 00:36:00,340 So why do you think that the courts are 925 00:36:00,340 --> 00:36:02,620 still reluctant to interpret legislation 926 00:36:02,620 --> 00:36:04,990 as being worded in a discriminatory way? 927 00:36:06,498 --> 00:36:07,068 Heloise: I think that's- 928 00:36:07,076 --> 00:36:09,041 it is a difficult question. 929 00:36:09,041 --> 00:36:12,950 I think perhaps inevitably, because the 930 00:36:12,950 --> 00:36:17,380 case was on abortion that might just color 931 00:36:17,380 --> 00:36:19,420 the approach to this particular case. 932 00:36:20,043 --> 00:36:21,033 You could have another case, 933 00:36:21,033 --> 00:36:22,833 which is about the negative 934 00:36:22,893 --> 00:36:24,753 message sent by the law. 935 00:36:25,203 --> 00:36:26,913 You could imagine maybe a scenario 936 00:36:26,913 --> 00:36:29,853 where you have a negative message 937 00:36:30,033 --> 00:36:31,833 about disability sent in the law, and 938 00:36:31,833 --> 00:36:34,113 it's not in the context of abortion. 939 00:36:34,253 --> 00:36:36,683 It may well be that, given that this was 940 00:36:37,148 --> 00:36:39,868 an abortion case, and given that that's 941 00:36:39,868 --> 00:36:42,368 a sensitive area, that may well have 942 00:36:42,398 --> 00:36:45,438 affected the approach that was taken here. 943 00:36:46,437 --> 00:36:47,757 Elysia: So you mentioned that the 944 00:36:47,757 --> 00:36:49,707 reality is that it might be impossible 945 00:36:49,707 --> 00:36:51,567 to describe disability in a way that's 946 00:36:51,567 --> 00:36:53,667 entirely neutral, especially as many 947 00:36:53,667 --> 00:36:55,737 conditions have a range of presentations, 948 00:36:55,737 --> 00:36:57,207 which make it difficult to fully 949 00:36:57,207 --> 00:36:59,607 encompass the diversity of experience. 950 00:36:59,967 --> 00:37:01,917 So how can legislators and the judiciary 951 00:37:01,917 --> 00:37:04,047 move forward then to provide descriptions 952 00:37:04,047 --> 00:37:05,997 of disability that do people justice? 953 00:37:06,639 --> 00:37:06,969 Heloise: Yes. 954 00:37:06,969 --> 00:37:08,439 That's such an important and such 955 00:37:08,439 --> 00:37:10,079 a difficult question and so we 956 00:37:10,079 --> 00:37:11,939 didn't intend in this article to 957 00:37:11,939 --> 00:37:15,209 provide a full resolution to that. 958 00:37:15,599 --> 00:37:17,279 I think part of the answer will 959 00:37:17,279 --> 00:37:19,494 come from greater awareness. 960 00:37:19,494 --> 00:37:21,564 I think as there's greater awareness 961 00:37:21,564 --> 00:37:24,414 of the importance of language and more 962 00:37:24,414 --> 00:37:26,574 understanding about disability, there can 963 00:37:26,574 --> 00:37:28,554 be progress that can be made in both the 964 00:37:28,554 --> 00:37:31,374 medical context and the legal context. 965 00:37:32,004 --> 00:37:37,139 But, and as I said before what's important 966 00:37:37,139 --> 00:37:40,929 to bear in mind is that the broader 967 00:37:40,929 --> 00:37:45,149 attitudes to disability, if there is 968 00:37:45,419 --> 00:37:48,089 a broader prejudice and stigma within 969 00:37:48,089 --> 00:37:51,609 society, it is very likely that that's 970 00:37:51,609 --> 00:37:53,889 going to affect one way or another the 971 00:37:53,889 --> 00:37:56,409 terminology that's going to be used. 972 00:37:56,707 --> 00:38:00,727 In terms of making progress, part of 973 00:38:00,727 --> 00:38:02,737 the progress can come from saying, 974 00:38:03,007 --> 00:38:05,197 right, we need greater awareness about 975 00:38:05,257 --> 00:38:08,167 certain terms that should not be used. 976 00:38:08,767 --> 00:38:10,147 There's some terms where it's obvious, 977 00:38:10,147 --> 00:38:11,647 there's others where there's debate 978 00:38:11,647 --> 00:38:12,817 and different views, but there's some 979 00:38:12,817 --> 00:38:15,819 terms we shouldn't use, but equally the 980 00:38:15,819 --> 00:38:18,579 connotations attaching to terms can change 981 00:38:18,669 --> 00:38:22,369 over time, and so the more we have a more 982 00:38:22,369 --> 00:38:25,429 inclusive approach in society in general, 983 00:38:25,669 --> 00:38:27,709 and the more that hopefully that will 984 00:38:27,739 --> 00:38:30,379 trickle down to the terminology as well. 985 00:38:30,975 --> 00:38:31,845 Elysia: That's all the questions 986 00:38:31,845 --> 00:38:32,805 that we have for today. 987 00:38:33,022 --> 00:38:34,792 Dr. Robinson, thank you so much for 988 00:38:34,792 --> 00:38:36,622 taking time out of your day to speak 989 00:38:36,622 --> 00:38:37,822 with us and to let everyone know a 990 00:38:37,822 --> 00:38:39,232 little bit more about the descriptions 991 00:38:39,232 --> 00:38:41,002 of disability in a legal context. 992 00:38:41,242 --> 00:38:43,162 Would you like to say a few final words? 993 00:38:44,709 --> 00:38:45,669 Heloise: Uh, that's all great. 994 00:38:45,669 --> 00:38:46,749 I, I just wanna say thank you 995 00:38:46,749 --> 00:38:48,639 very much for having me and 996 00:38:48,639 --> 00:38:50,339 for speaking with me today. 997 00:38:50,339 --> 00:38:51,959 And I'm very happy if there is 998 00:38:51,959 --> 00:38:54,019 any interest in these issues. 999 00:38:55,600 --> 00:38:56,770 Elysia: Thank you very much to Dr. 1000 00:38:56,770 --> 00:38:58,330 Robinson once again for coming to the 1001 00:38:58,330 --> 00:39:00,100 Oxford University Undergraduate Law 1002 00:39:00,100 --> 00:39:02,320 Podcast and to Crown Office Chambers 1003 00:39:02,320 --> 00:39:03,850 for making this series possible. 1004 00:39:04,150 --> 00:39:05,830 Lastly, thank you to our listeners 1005 00:39:05,830 --> 00:39:07,000 for supporting the podcast.