Abstract
In December 2006 the UN General Assembly adopted the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It came into force in May 2008. The next step, the incorporation into national law, will be a great political challenge for most member states. The Convention calls for a paradigm shift
... read more
from a policy of welfare to a policy of human rights. It is based on the social model, which attributes disability to social barriers, lack of support and discriminatory views in society. The guiding principles of the Convention are full and effective participation and inclusion in society, together with respect for individual autonomy and universal claims for social support. Disabled people who require intensive care are explicitly included. In a remarkable way, this links fundamental freedoms, such as the right to be protected from state or other interference in personal liberty, with social rights, such as the right to access social services and benefits. In detail, states are e.g. obliged to guarantee the elimination of obstacles and barriers in buildings, transportation, all indoor and outdoor facilities, information and communication; to ensure that people with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence; to guarantee the general right for all children to get an inclusive education; and to ensure the right of all people with disabilities to marry and found a family. These examples show that the new Convention represents a remarkably rich and extended understanding of human rights. The present Thesis explores if the “disability rights” formulated by the new Convention can be understood as coherently and consistently specifying universal human rights. This analysis shows: • First, the basic principle of inclusiveness of human rights contradicts popular positions in bioethics, where e.g. the universal right to life for disabled neonates is controversial. • Second, while the basic principle of universal respect requires claims for care and support in daily life, it potentially undermines the modern division between the public and private spheres. • Third, there might be doubts, if the sophisticated, specific claims for disabled people could be seen in accordance with the notion of general rights. Initially, these three points are discussed within the framework of social justice theory. Therefore, the three currently most popular concepts of social justice for disabled people, referring to John Rawls, Alasdair MacIntyre and Martha Nussbaum, are being examined. All three concepts are based explicitly or implicitly on the accounts of inclusiveness and universality regarding people with great demands for care and support. However, it has been shown that all three concepts contradict their own requirements to include all disabled people. Thus, a conclusion is drawn that the controversial aspects mentioned above can not be satisfactorily discussed without normative ethical reflection. Subsequently, it has been shown that the rich concept of human rights in the new Convention can be reasonably defended regarding a deontological concept of ethics. This concept is based on Kant’s principle of human dignity and an extended interpretation of his doctrine of justice, which, on the one side, includes comprehensive claims for solidarity and, on the other, retains consistent refusal of any form of paternalism. In this way, it abstains from the individual coercion to care for others and instead formulates collective duties of solidarity. From this it follows that social conditions are required in which the protection not only of negative rights but also of positive social, economic and cultural rights is institutionally anchored. Furthermore, a social climate is required that promotes the individual and collective readiness to assume the corresponding positive duties to support, help and care for weaker and dependent members of our societies.
show less
