[community] COVID-19 visitation bans for people in institutions put many at risk in other ways

[John Rae]

COVID-19 visitation bans for people in institutions put many at risk in
other ways

 

Barring visitors ignores the specific needs of those with intellectual and
psychiatric disabilities

 

By Natalie Spagnuolo, Michael Orsini  

CBC News Opinion, Mar. 29, 2020

 

This column is an opinion by Natalie Spagnuolo, PhD, and Michael Orsini.
Spagnuolo teaches in Disability Studies at Carleton University and is
co-director of Memory, Witness and Hope. Orsini  is a professor at the
Institute of Feminist and Gender Studies and the School of Political Studies
at the University of Ottawa, where he specializes in health policy and
politics. For more information about CBC's Opinion section, please see the
FAQ.

 

Disabled people know a lot about social isolation.

 

Many - including those with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities - are
relying on the success of COVID-19 containment strategies, and lives are
indeed at risk if they are not taken seriously. However, public health
measures that restrict visiting rights to those in institutional settings
are putting many at risk in other ways.

 

While public health principles have a rightful place in our decisions, so
too do principles that recognize the humanity and dignity of people with
disabilities.

 

As the COVID-19 crisis unfolds, recent decisions to implement visitation
bans in group homes for people with intellectual disabilities, in
psychiatric hospitals and wards, and in prisons, recall a familiar and
painful history for many disabled people. In these days of physical
distancing, it is important to emphasize that this is one of the oldest
public health measures aimed at "containing" the imagined threat of
disability.

 

Many disabled people are already separated from non-disabled people. It is a
legacy of eugenic segregation, which has been resisted by survivors of
former government-run institutions for people with intellectual
disabilities, such as Huronia and the Rideau Regional Centre in Ontario.

 

While there are legitimate reasons to think about and act collectively today
to contain the spread of COVID-19, there are many "publics" who are ignored
in our zeal to soothe the fears and concerns of otherwise healthy, and
presumably non-disabled, people. When physical distancing is widely
mobilized, other risks emerge for individuals already occupying a socially
distant status.

 

Denying the vital supports provided by trusted people, including family and
friends who may assist with decision-making and communication, constitutes
not only a disruption or inconvenience, it creates an impossible situation
for many. Without these "reasonable accommodations," some individuals with
intellectual disabilities, for example, are left with little scope for
advocacy in difficult situations, including if conflicts arise with staff
members in their place of residence.

 

Some of these individuals do not have access to cellphones or the internet
to stay connected with other people. Others, as a result of
communication-related disabilities, may not be able to use phones, TTY,
email or Skype.

 

And if the dark history of isolating disabled people has taught us anything,
it's that closed institutional settings breed violence. Survivor narratives
are a painful reminder of environments marked by physical, sexual and verbal
abuse, and sometimes death.

 

.Point of ViewAs a disabled person, it's hard to watch accessibility only
improve now that able-bodied are affected

 

These issues are already well known to many disability communities and
organizations. Last week the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons
with disabilities, Catalina Davindas, spoke about disabled people confined
in institutions and prisons, drawing attention to how restricting contact
with trusted people can lead to "abuse or neglect."

 

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities echoed this concern in a recent
media statement calling for the inclusion of a "disability lens" in all
COVID-19 planning.

 

We fully support recommendations made by the ARCH Disability Law Centre in
Toronto, which on March 24 urged recognition of "caregivers and disability
support staff as essential service providers." ARCH also asked the
government to work with provinces and territories to, "Ensure that hospitals
make an exception to any blanket prohibition of visitors when a person with
a disability requires assistance with vital services like communication,
caregiving, or supported decision making."

 

Such exceptions are equally important in group home settings.

 

In a news conference conducted by telephone, Vera Etches, Ottawa's chief
medical officer of health, says a delay in getting test results and the
continuing return of travellers from abroad make it too early to say how
social distancing measures are affecting the spread of COVID-19. 0:42

 

In light of the 2019 passing of the Accessible Canada Act, the failure to
consider the 22 per cent of Canadians with disabilities in the government
response to COVID-19 is immensely disappointing. Emergency planning must
equally recognize those disabled people without status, including disabled
migrants who face the multiple risks outlined by the Migrant Rights Network,
not least of which is the threat of detention and deportation if they seek
medical care, and increased vulnerability to contracting COVID-19 if they
are detained.

 

Government-mandated physical distancing for those already socially distant
and made vulnerable by support systems, immigration and carceral policies,
is harmful and surely not in the best interests of public health, unless
disabled "publics" do not figure in our estimation of who counts. 

 

We must take stock of differences in terms of impairment, and appreciate how
gender, sexuality, race, class, language, migration status, and other
factors shape disabled peoples' experiences with physical distancing.

 

In  a news conference conducted by telephone Wednesday, Steve Kanellakos,
city manager, says that with the social distancing measures required to stop
the spread of COVID-19, communities aren't able to pull together quite like
they would in other emergencies. 0:41

 

Pundits will no doubt opine that these are extraordinary times, and as the
argument goes, they justify extraordinary measures to protect the public.
But for people with disabilities, their needs continue to be exceptional in
an age in which we aren't making exceptions. This is the inevitable
circularity of pandemic logic, which is rooted in justifying actions that
are outside of the typical limits of legitimate state activity. But in
pandemic times, we still need to take the time to think about our ethical
commitments to disabled people.

 

These include respecting a person's right to access trusted people who
provide empowering supports. We can start by exempting these relationships
from physical distancing measures.

 

Scholar Michael J. Prince reminds us that disabled people are "absent
citizens," their power assumed to be non-existent. Politicians need not
worry about their vote; most people can go about their lives with limited
concern for the livelihood of those who vacillate between being regarded as
objects of neglect and being looked upon with charity or pity. In either of
these formulations, there is limited space for imagining intellectually
disabled people as rights-bearing individuals who are flourishing, but it's
something society must not forget. 

 

Crises can bring out the best in people, and we have witnessed numerous
examples during this pandemic, including the caremongering movement that has
emerged in Canada to support disabled people, among others.

 

But it is critical in our crisis planning to consider the lives of disabled
folks, whose connections to society matter now more than ever.

 

About the Author

 

Natalie Spagnuolo, PhD, teaches in Disability Studies at Carleton
University. She volunteers with the Council of Canadians with Disabilities
and is co-director Memory, Witness and Hope, a participatory multi-modal
project that supports storytelling among survivors of regional centres for
people with intellectual disabilities. 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-covid-19-public-health-institutions-
risk-1.5510546