Why we still use "Mental Retardation" |
|
The Name Game Advocates and policymakers agree that the pejorative use of the word "retarded” is unacceptable under any circumstances. More and more, however, states are removing completely “Mental Retardation” in agency names and state laws, opting for broader terms such as intellectual or developmental disabilities. Advocates are split on whether this trend is in the best interest of individuals with mental retardation. Broadly, opinions regarding the use of this language fall into two camps: 1. "Mental Retardation" describes a specific condition that links an individual to services. "Sanitizing" language and laws puts people with mental retardation into a much larger pool of people all competing for services. Dropping “mental retardation” from usage does not make the condition go away. The need for services remains. More generally, use of "mental retardation" allows for clarity of message and need, when speaking to policy, lawmakers, the media and others. 2. Use of "Retarded" (especially) and also "mental retardation" can be a "show stopper” or "deal breaker," when trying to communicate a message, urge a particular policy, or otherwise engage in discussions, testimony, etc. about the issues. It also is hurtful to some of the very people we claim to advocate for. In short, its usage can be an impediment to our advocacy objectives. VOR's Name and Mission It is by design that VOR's mission adheres to the more narrow population of "mental retardation," in contrast to nondescript labels ("intellectual disabilities") and far broader populations ("developmental disabilities"). People with mental retardation are a defined group with defined services and eligibility criteria. Likewise, it is by design that VOR has adopted official usage of its acronym, rather than its full name, on marketing and in communication materials. The term "Retarded" is offensive to some members of our constituency, and a "turn off" to some policy and lawmakers. We do our mission and constituency a significant disservice if our audience doesn't hear our message because they can't get past our name. Have advocates, policymakers and lawmakers abandoned people in favor of PC names? Yet, the term remains squarely in federal and state entitlement laws (including Medicaid), and is still used by the medical profession in offering primary and secondary diagnoses. Simply stated, "mental retardation" is a recognized condition that, when diagnosed by a medical professional, provides individuals eligibility for specific rights and benefits. For VOR to accomplish our objectives, we feel bound to adhere to the same terminology used in federal laws, including laws that fund programs for "people with mental retardation." Any other designation clouds the issue and makes our ability to advocate far more difficult. Furthermore, we feel strongly that any other designation serves to expand those eligible for services now only available to people with mental retardation, and thereby puts at risk people with mental retardation. To explain this latter point, consider the term "developmentally disabled." By law someone is developmentally disabled if they are physically AND/OR mentally disabled, became disabled before the age of 22, and has limitations in three major life activities. Major life activities include self-care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self-direction, capacity for independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. It is possible that an individual can be cognitively-able but developmentally disabled. While VOR agrees that every person with developmental disabilities requires and deserves access to high quality services and supports, we are concerned that to expand our advocacy to include “developmental disabilities" hinders our effectiveness to advocate for people with mental retardation. A few years back, The Arc-US published an excellent white paper spelling out the rationale for keeping "mental retardation" part of its Mission Statement. The document, titled "Mental Retardation v. Developmental Disabilities: Should The Arc Change Its Focus From Serving People With Mental Retardation to Serving People With All Developmental Disabilities?" can be found at: http://www.thearc.org/ga/abstract.html. Here is an excerpt that appears at the beginning of the paper: "While this change -- at first -- might seem minor, it has major implications for children and adults with mental retardation and their families and The Arc. What is the Real Difference Between Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities? Many people who think 'developmental disabilities' is simply a nicer term for 'mental retardation' do not realize that the definition of developmental disabilities does not apply to most people with mild mental retardation." It should be noted that despite The Arc's research on this issue in the past, The Arc ultimately reversed itself and dropped "mental retardation" from its Mission Statement, opting instead to use "cognitive, intellectual, and developmental disabilities." Staying the Course From an advocacy perspective, VOR is interested in expressing with clarity our constituency so that when approaching lawmakers and policymakers, we can speak clearly with regard to the services and supports needed. As many others in the disability move away from "mental retardation," VOR is proud to stand alone as The Voice for this constituency. |
