Essay Example: Disabled People Community

Disability can be defined as a state or condition that limits an individual's mental or physical capabilities. The disabled community, in most cases, is not able to perform daily tasks the normal way as expected due to their physical or mental challenges. The disabled people community is thus a collection of individuals with varied limited physical and mental condition that makes them unfit to perform normal or routine tasks as expected (Colker, 2009).

The government through the judicial system has been on the forefront spearheading the amendment of certain laws and regulations in favor of the disabled community. Just recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of creating a comfortable and accommodating space in buses. There was a case brought forward by Mr. Paulley against First Group. The Supreme Court ruled that drivers would have to come up with a dedicated section for disabled people in wheelchairs other than just telling the rest of the passenger to move aside and create space for the disabled passenger in a wheelchair. The new ruling created a concern to the bus company's policy about wheelchair space to be provided in buses. The Supreme Court gave First Group the duty to make the necessary adjustments in buses for service users by the disabled community. This rule is now being implemented, and the bus company is putting wheelchair spaces as a way of adhering to the Supreme Court ruling. However, this law was not enforced as expected. First Group did create a space for the disabled community, but people still used them. Mr. Paulley went to Supreme Court after he asked a woman to give him the space reserved for the disabled but the woman refused. He claimed that there was no reasonable adjustment to the new policy. The Supreme Court ruled out that FirstGroup was liable to the new rule that includes the driver asking passengers in the reserved location for wheelchair users to give space. In the case where the non-wheel user refuses to vacate the reserved space, the Supreme Court gave guidance of action to be taken to pressurize the non-wheelchair passenger to move an example being refusing to drive on to the next destination until the non-wheelchair user gives up space or he/she is moved. However, the Supreme Court was clear to state that the driver will take this action after a careful evaluation of the reason for refusal to give space, say in cases where the passenger is very sick, then the rule wont apply.

The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of the disable people community in getting better access to social care. A case presented by Charities stated that thousands of disabled people lack social care. They stated that this could potentially be accessed if the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Irwin Mitchell, the lead prosecutor in the charities, said that the decision was potentially the biggest that will have to be made concerning disabled community care in the span of last 15 years. Using a disabled man, K.M, 26 years old and born without eyes as an example, charities challenged the care package that was being offered by the council. He said that this has caused Mr. K.M to have a series of physical and mental illnesses that could have been avoided with adequate support care package and proper feeding. Scott-Moncrieff together with an army of associate and K.Ms lawyers presented their case to the Supreme Court arguing that Cambridgeshire County Councils offer of 85,000 annual care package was insufficient and irrational to meet K.Ms needs backing up their claim on a social workers 157,000 cost annually. The judges unanimously rejected the challenge claiming that the offer was made rationally by the council. However, Lord Wilson, who delivered the final verdict wanted the council to be more specific about the services that the proposed care package will be channeled to ensure that the beneficiary meets his eligible needs. Simon Foster who was among the disabled charities involved the lawsuit was happy with the Supreme Court verdict saying that the obligation of transparency over the care funds given to the disabled people community will give them the authority to challenge the charity packages given to them. He continued saying that in the past the decisions made was somewhat unclear and some of the disabled people did report that the council would even refuse to assess and process their application for care packages claiming that they were unaffordable (Rich, Erb, & Rich, 2002). However, with the Supreme Court ruling making the decision utterly precise means that the council is required by the law to conduct a full assessment of the care package even if there is no finance to fund the package.

A report released by the World Health Organization stated 15% of the worlds population possesses a kind of disability. The report continued to say that between 100 to 190 million adult individuals do have some complications or difficulties that can be closely related to disability. The report showed that the rate of disability is increasing because of chronic health conditions and aging population (Blanck, 2000). Despite the efforts put forward in assisting the disabled community, world health organization reported that people with disability have limited access to health care services leading them to experience unmet healthcare needs. The reports also show that from 35% to 50% of people with mental disorder in developed countries were reported in seeking medical care while the figures rose from 75% to 85% in underdeveloped countries. The report also showed that people with physical disability are less likely to secure jobs in companies when a healthy individual seeks the same position but both are having the same qualifications (Stein, & Stein, 2006).

References

Blanck, P. D. (Ed.). (2000). Employment, disability, and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Issues in law, public policy, and research. Northwestern University Press.

Colker, R. (2009). The law of disability discrimination. LexisNexis.

Rich, R. F., Erb, C. T., & Rich, R. A. (2002). Critical legal and policy issues for people with disabilities. DePaul J. Health Care L., 6, 1.

Stein, M. A., & Stein, P. J. (2006). Beyond disability civil rights. Hastings LJ, 58, 1203.