On hubs (DISABILITY) and shafts

I wish to provide some additional insight into the public discourse initiated some weeks ago after the government’s proposal for a “disability Hub” was unveiled.

For clarity, the primary aim here is to add some more weight to the voice of those who have some serious reservations about the project, among them Mr Camilleri, former KNPD chairman. In this article, I wish to emphasis four points which in my opinion stand out and are important for a constructive discourse on the matter.

Starting from the analysis of what has been reported so far, it is clear that, unfortunately, a simplistic or rather reductionist view on the problem of disability has been voiced by the government on this occasion which failed to take into account the multi-faceted meaning of the term “disability”. Apart from the obvious meaning of physical or mental impairment, I wish to draw the attention of those with the current public mandate to govern (apologies to those who know this already), to the more subtle, yet important meaning of disability in that the person suffering from a disability is not only unable to perform some physical or mental tasks, but is by virtue of his/her impediment, unable, (or finds it difficult) to interact/relate with society in what the collective would deem a “normal way”. Put in this light, the disabled is not only the bearer of such disability but also the society in which he or she exists, as both struggle to overcome the natural reaction of seclusion (inherent in any society, human and non-human, and a process [seclusion]which ensured over the millennia the survival of the said society). Just like the individual is a bearer of physical or mental disability, the breaking down of this barrier is also a process which must be tackled on an individual basis. The problem here is that like-minded people usually aggregate, such that groups with varying sensitivity to this issue form within a society, creating a so-called spectrum. Such a spectrum ranges from people who are aware of the fact that they themselves are “disabled” in the sense that they have to work hard to bridge the gaps between the physically-and-mentally disabled and themselves; we might term these people as undergoing a process of humanisation. The other side of the spectrum is made up of people who exhibit a complete lack of recognition of this fact, people who have to some degree or other undergone a process of dehumanisation. Thus, lack of recognition by those in government that the whole of society requires help (each according to the level of abstraction he or she is capable of) in overcoming this abstract barrier might contribute to the dehumanisation process of the said society.

Thus by the sheer fact that the proposed “hub” defines a form of segregation, (even if well-intentioned), it amplifies a process of dehumanisation and fails to address those within the community who need help with breaking this abstract barrier. In the long run, this will turn out to be a disfavour to society as a whole, as it will contribute nothing to the education about this problem of inclusion and advancement of the humanisation process.

A second consideration is more of a logistical or practical nature. Assuming the proposal is ethically sound and that we accept it (which it isn’t and we aren’t), one has to ask what services have been catered for in the proposal apart for the physical enmities, such as a swimming pool and so on. In more concrete terms: what about accident and emergency services and security? Starting from the first, given the fact that a high density of physically disabled people will form part of this hub, the area’s potential A&E hit rate will be very high, so the first question which comes to mind would be, is there going to be a clinic manned 24/7 in close proximity to cater for this increased risk? If so, will it have the required trained staff and equipment? The second issue concerns security. This might require more thinking, seeing that commercial entities are also planned as part of this “hub” and seeing the density of vulnerable people, how does the proposal cater for the physical security of the latter? The truth is that while the first issue is “easily” solved without much impact on the public with the setting up of a well-staffed polyclinic, the second is much more painful to solve. Sticking to the simplistic world view proposed, a perimetral watch might need to be set up: one might go as far as to define it as a “gated community”, and suddenly the government will find itself approving a physically-secluded hub for people struggling to break down their own seclusion, (not very far for some Eugenic experiments in 1920s Europe).

Both these considerations will cost money and political points which bring us to the third point of the discourse – cost. Both health and security provisions will cost money to maintain, this accounts for the running costs which might not be negligible. Who will fork out the money for this? And how much will it be? Surely if considered these cannot form part of a stated lump sum calculation of €12 million. Further to this, if we consider the capital outlay only for 119 people as quoted, this would add up to roughly 100 thousand euro/capita, which might see the individual a long way if he uses the services currently available.

While I hope that the so-called “panel of experts” did raise these issues with the minister in charge, what is more worrying is the fact that the latter chose to pitch the proposal in such a way as to inculpate/ shift the responsibility of the proposal from the ministry, as if to say, “listen these experts came up with idea, not I”, reflecting a common trend in recent national and international politics (which I will not go into in this article), that is, a lack of political resolve and future accountability, the fourth point of this discourse.

The truth unfortunately is that it is easier to cut ribbons placed across newly built doorways and buildings rather than to cut ribbons on policies. Why? Because even though good policies might be more enduring in day-to-day life, buildings are monuments to the government who built them, for better or for worse they will provide a basis for superficial public discourse each and every day.

There is of course a solution to this problem, which might turn out to be of mutual benefit to both the government and the community. The fact that this government has shown a will to invest this capital in the system is already a noteworthy achievement. The solution here will be to invest this capital in ideas already put forward for independent living, providing personalised care for the said amount of people and beyond. Such a system had already been set up some years ago and is pathetically run on a budget which is less than one per cent of that proposed for this hub (not counting the running expenses mentioned and building maintenance). I am referring here to the independent living scheme run by Sapport which has not seen its measly budget increased in the four years of its existence whereas the demand for it is constantly increasing.

Thus what I am saying is that if the government really wants to help and as an entity is interested in giving the best service per euro spent, it might be better off considering significant improvement to systems set up previously by people in the disabled community which had already taken a lot of energy and effort.