Disability-and-Health Books

This book examines why and how the Kennedys became involved with Mental Retardation and eventually all disability right issues. Because myself and many other Americans have benefited from the civil rights laws of the last thirty years, it is eye opening to remember a world had once existed without those laws.

People with disabilties were so scorned by society that 'erasing' their presence or locking them up at home was previously considered the most loving option. Partially from their own history with Rosemary, the Kennedys felt obligated to use their reputation and change these public moores.

This same book also notes how the independent living movement eventually surpassed Eunice Kennedy Shriver's Special Olympic work as the most visible manifestation of people with disabilties. Although their visiblity was made possible through the family's previous community organizing, people with disabilities themselves subsequently sought a greater role in a movement dedicated to their rights.

However enlightened for the time, Special Olympics are today considered by some people to instead reinforce 'poster child' sterotypes of people with disabilities. Reccent Special Olympic materials are mindful of the shift, now stressing participant empowerment and dignity. Mental retardation references were revised with the term 'intellectual disabilities'.

This is not a particularly involved read, but it is interesting for people interested in the Kennedy family and/or disability rights. Because it is supposed to focus on the family's contributions to this policy area, the scope is much smaller than other disability history books. At the same time, this book does not pretend this family had all the answers with disability rights issues, and acknowlleged they were as influenced by other activists as the activists were influenced by them.

What Joe Kennedy did was to take a reportedly shy and mildly retarded woman (or so they claimed) and obliterate her humanity with a lobotomy. The reason is reported to be that she was considered an embarassment and a potential roadblock to Kennedy political ambitions.

It was a "failed" lobotomy, the reports frequently say. What would constitute a successful lobotomy? The Kennedys have spent the subsequent decades promoting psychiatric tortures and coercive mistreatments of millions of other Americans who have ended up in the clutches of the "mental health community." In short, their "philanthropy" is one of support for violence and torture. For this they are feted as humanitarians by apologists such as this author.

I wanted a book for parents and this isn't it. This is a book for researchers and clinicians. If that's your angle, than this is a very comprehensive book and I'd recommend it. If you're a parent, stay away, it's definately "out there".

Written almost as a children's book for the parents, the content of this book is simplistic, centered around a do-it-yourself guide for a few tools, toys and games. If you're looking for a scientifically based, nature-as-therapy type of resource, this is not it. Nor should this be used for public areas, due to its home-built nature. It may be a good primer for those completely unfamiliar with the concepts, but overall there are much better texts available

Does not totally disspell misconceptions, as advertised: At one point, a picture caption with a vintage picture of a school for crippled children [term appropriate for the vintage picture] tells that once, crippled children "had to make their own chairs," leaving a small child to assume they were perhaps either very poor or were being punished. In fact, the picture was probably showing vocational training in the area of chair caning, so that the students would leave school with a marketable job skill.

Also, the book is decidedly British, and Americans and others might want to preview this offering to determine whether or not the attitudes and information in the book are reflective of the purchaser's location.

As a feminist with a disability, I was eager to read what had been previously described as a seminal text on feminist disability studies.

Because so many other people had previously recommended this work to me, I had assumed that I would find much common ground with the author.

I had forgotten an observation from Gloria Anzaldua that people who are supposed to be friends and co-activists also place each other in demographic hierarchies. In this book, Barbara Hillyer wanted to talk about disability and feminism while selectively ignoring the voices of myself and other feminists with disabilities who would have lots to share.

Although this book gave me some perspective on the emotions my parents (who have since come out as feminists) went through with my own childhood...etc, the focus on Hillyer's daughter inadvertently emphasizes dependence and people-with-disability-as-children stereotypes.

I don't doubt that this experience itself is difficult, especially with ongoing sociopolitical limitations after disability is identified. But, the approach of this book ultimately is detrimental to the progressive world which we all supposedly wish to have.

Hillyer spends more time worrying about people with disabilities than actually wanting to hear our own experiences and perspectives. Her (admittedly 'new') analysis of care giving/assisting for people with disabilities through a feminist perspective is seriously weakened through this aforementioned limited approach. She does not consider that we are capable of caregiving for ourselves and each other.

Even if we are not saying the things she wants to hear, our own perspectives are also important for social justice obtainment.

Advocating on behalf of people with disabilities is impossible without our own voices and ideas being fully included. Echoing the general feminist movement, we also believe that the personal is political.

Several times while attempting to get through the personal aggrandizement readily placed throughout this book (ironically from a person who also writes that she does not want to be seen as a martyr!), I checked the publication date to see if I was reading something which was first published in the 1960's (if not earlier).

Because those earlier published 'disability' books also had 'experts' rushing to speak on behalf of people with disabilities ourselves, I am honestly saddened that so little has changed in subsequent years.

For all of her `revolutionary' intentions, Hillyer echoes the status quo assumptions of people with disabilities as being inactive, dependent, and child-like. One of the first widely accessible works on feminism and disability, this book now is thankfully overshadowed by far superior texts from Susan Wendel...etc.

Today, Hillyer's book would be a mediocre selection for library collections on disability, and a very poor choice for people with disabilities wanting to see how feminist theory and disability issues intersect.

Were I to meet with her at a conference...etc, Hillyer apparently would not consider me a colleague and/or activist associate. I too would become reduced to her stereotype of what people with disabilities ultimately were capable of doing.

This book is geared towards a PT or OT student who is taking a class involving home health. The information in the majority of chapters is general therefore this is not meant as a reference book for practicing therapists in the field. There are two chapters which are relevent. They include creative exercise and treatment ideas for the home.

Although this book shares some good information and common sense, if you yourself are dealing with a hearing loss (as the book suggests), you will not find an unbiased opinion here. Stressing oralism (lipreading and listening with assistive listening devices), there is no talk of sign language whatsoever herein. If you're losing your hearing, but vow to never admit you're deaf (when the loss becomes that severe) and vow that you will stay in the "hearing world" at all costs, this is the book for you to read as you live in denial. However, if you are truly open to learning about every option offered you as a hard of hearing or deaf person, don't waste your time. That's just this deafie's opinion. :o)

Why is an MD writing on learning disorders? Some inaccuracies Inoticed..autism is a neurological disorder, not a developmental disorder. And I question the statement "shyness and autism are sometimes confused". He never discusses motor delays as a reason for poor handwriting. Some useful information here, but much inaccurate information.

I am a mother of a child with special needs. I had just read "Smiling at Shadows" by Junee Waites and Helen Swinbourne. and was so impressed by the insight it offered that I looked forward to reading "My Son Fred". The two autistic boys, now grown up, appear to have been born at about the same time although one was born in the States and the other, Fred was born in Sweden and also had an intellectual disability.

The two books are very different. "Smiling at Shadows" was a far more positive book that gives great insight into why many ASD children behave as they do. The mother did not in any way understate her own pain and described her journey with great honesty, but we also learned a lot about her son's way of behaving and looking at the world.

"My son Fred" is also about a mother's journey but there is somehow not much about Fred except how he impacts on his mother. There is though a great deal about the mother's feelings throughout. She is searingly honest about these but it is only towards the end of the book, when her son is grown-up, that she begins to describe her son's viewpoint and why he possibly behaved in certain ways. I found her writing style quite irritating, with many words written in CAPITALS or with a Capital First Letter, and some of the language quite cringey. It is translated from Swedish but no doubt the Swedish version contains the same writing style.

Having said all this, it is still worth reading for the terrible way children with intellectual disabilities were regarded at that time. The mother was told by doctors and so-called friends to put him into a home and forget all about him and was condemned for not doing so. She was unsupported and her decision to keep him at home had an enormous and draining impact on her family, yet they all loved him as much as any parent loves their child - something others could not see. Had Fred been born today it is hoped that he would have received much more enlightened care and education and his parents would have been far better-supported.

There are many good things about this book. Had there been a better balance between the writer's feelings and her son's story(as we got in "Smiling at Shadows") and the writing style had been different, I'm sure I would have closed the book feeling enlightened rather than irritated.

This book should be banned! It is full of misinformation. The American Sign Language manual alphabet illustrated on p.22-23 is incorrect. I am afraid well meaning children may learn the alphabet wrong. This is a terrible book. No library should give up valuable shelf space for this.

If you are looking for a good book for your young student this is NOT it. Information in the book is not correct. It comes close but misses the mark. AND the alphabet that is pictured on pages 22-23 is NOT the American Sign Language Alphabet but as near as I can figure a mix between the Norweigen and Spanish Alphabets.