Browsing Intellectual Disabilities by Subject "Bereavement"
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
Death, disability, and dogmaMourning exists at the nexus between individual experience, professional discourses, research, and culture, making it a complex issue for health services that has shown vibrant change in recent years. By contrast, bereavement discourse in intellectual disability is suffused by dogmatic assertions about correct intervention: we describe four vignettes to illustrate bereavement issues in intellectual disability. Suggestions concerning issues and management are made, but the article focuses primarily on the conceptual issues that underpin clinical intervention. The analysis shows how challenges to the meaning of the disabled life, and to the understandings carers and staff draw on, tend to be resisted. We hypothesize this is most likely to surround issues that evoke cultural uncertainty, such as bereavement. The thesis is that the field of intellectual disability tends to be isolationist because meaning is difficult to create and easily dissolved, especially when addressing culturally contested topics. Dialogue with other disciplines is necessary to stop the field from atrophying, but needs to be carried out in ways that enable carers and clinicians to continue providing the support that people with intellectual disability require. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)(journal abstract)
Living with contested knowledge and partial authorityResponds to comments by S. Colman (see record 2003-07847-012), G. Casenave (see record 2003-07847-013), and H. Reinders (see record 2003-07847-014) to the authors' original article (see record 2003-07847-011) which considers issues and approaches particular to those helping the intellectually disabled understand and cope with bereavement. J. Clegg and R. Lansdall-Welfare defend their view that ambiguities associated with meaning in the disabled life make it more likely that professional service providers will make dogmatic responses to bereavement, responses that are defended by isolationism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)