case study

case study

case study

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to discuss and provide explanations for tendencies occurring in disability activism and policies to overlook elderly people, to define elderly disabled people as elderly rather than disabled and to provide them with services of lower quality than those given to their younger peers. Our analysis will be based on a U K case that constitutes “institutional ageism” (Palmore, 2005:334) in the sense that older people have been excluded from a government program benefiting younger people with disabilities.

Following a comprehensive government investigation ([SOU, 1990:19], [SOU, 1991:46] and [SOU, 1992:52]) Sweden introduced a system of personal assistance in 1994. This reform improved conditions for people with lasting, long-term support requirements who are below the age of 65. But why were people above the age of 65 years excluded? An obvious answer is that reforms that include people of all ages cost more. The government investigation preceding the reform did present a lack of resources as the reason for excluding disabled people reaching the age of 65 from the population entitled to personal assistance, but the decision to exclude the large group of people who had become disabled after the age of 65 was justified rather than excused. And if lack of resources was the reason, why did representatives of the disability movement that were members of the Disability Committee not protest against the age limit?1

From a review of literature on disability policies it becomes clear that exclusion of older people from the field of disability policies is not unique to Sweden. In several countries elderly people with severe impairments do not seem to have the same rights to special support as their younger peers (cf. [Kennedy and Minkler, 1998], [Kane and Kane, 2005], [Priestley, 2003], [Priestley, 2006] and [Putnam, 2002]). From looking at the situation in North America, Kane and Kane (2005:52) state: “People who incur a disability such as blindness, deafness, or spinal cord injury in older age are much less likely than their younger counterparts to be offered targeted rehabilitation, training, and equipment to manage their daily lives.” According to Kane and Kane the tendency to accept this “ageism” is partly the result of differences in goals and expectations among age cohorts, and the situation is justified by healthcare and service personnel who refer to older people as being content with staying in nursing homes.

In addition, disability activists seem to have paid little attention to the needs of disabled older citizens (Morris, 1993). Puzzled by a lack of interest in elderly disabled people in the British disability movement, Walker and Walker (1998:126) state: “Thus, inadvertently, radical theorists and campaigners have given legitimacy to the longstanding preference on the part of policy makers to draw a line between older and younger disabled people on the grounds that disability in old age is a 'natural' part of the ageing process. This distinction absolves policy makers from the responsibility of taking action to recognize the needs of older disabled people, but the theoretical or ...