Brain injury, medical progress, and the disability paradox: Towards an Americans with Abilities Act

Author:

Fins Joseph J.123,Shulman Kaiulani S.1,Wright Megan S.14,Shapiro Zachary E.12

Affiliation:

1. Division of Medical Ethics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

2. Solomon Center for Health Law & Policy, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT, USA

3. Consortium for the Advanced Study of Brain Injury (CASBI), Weill Cornell Medicine, Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA

4. School of Law and Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA

Abstract

It is helpful to think about the needs of patients with moderate to severe brain injury through the lens of disability law. However, there are limitations to current disability law that contribute to ongoing segregation and marginalization of individuals with severe brain injury. Indeed, one of the paradoxes of American jurisprudence is that more clear constitutional protections accrue to those who have definitively immutable conditions. Thus, as neuroscience brings new therapies to those with brain injury, they may become less protected by the constitutional elements of disability law because their conditions have changed and become mutable. This is the clinical progress that brain injury professionals all seek to achieve, but ironically these advances could potentially degrade the legal protections of patients who benefit from emerging treatments. In this paper, we will critically examine this paradox at the interface of medicine and the law and suggest that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) could be nicely complemented by legislation we have named the Americans with Abilities Act (AWAA). Instead of focusing on disabilities that need protection, the AWAA seeks to sustain and foster newfound abilities made possible by the fruits of medicine and neuroscience.

Publisher

IOS Press

Reference31 articles.

1. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 (1990).

2. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 (1990). 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(7)(i) (2019).

3. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 (1990). 47 U.S.C. §225.

4. ADAAmendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, §2, 122 Stat. 3553, 3553-54.

5. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3