The Medical Model of disability
According to Scambler (2008:43), numerous medical analysts perceive this model as an antecedent of the social model of disability. This model exemplifies disability as a disease or a state of abnormality. This means a person lacks the normal features, which characterize other human beings. In reference to this model, disabled people face two significant problems, which incorporate loss of bodily or cognitive impairment together with work-related disability. Apparently, these are the most important features and values of human life. These aspects play a vital role in ensuring individuals earn a living. Consequently, this is a discrepancy model because it considers disability as a problem. Furthermore, it focuses on an individual’s bodily or psychological impairment.
It is evident that this perspective insists that disability exists in an individual; furthermore, it is subject to psychoanalysis of impairment. It further depicts that the state in which an individual performs his duties without impairment is a criterion used in determining normalcy. Medical analysts and practitioners use this model when defining disability. This is because they believe it has all the relevant features and components critical in tackling concerns.
This model gives the notion that disabled individuals are mentally and physically inferior to normal individuals. This is because they are unable to accomplish other tasks as normal people. Furthermore, they might have some features that are deformed or under formed. These include limbs or their intellectual capacity. Most importantly, the absence of normal features makes them inferior to other individuals. It is also evident that this model perceives disabled people as individuals who cannot make decisions. Thus, they need constant supervision and guidance. The medical model also perceives disability as a calamity that happens to individuals. It defines disability as a misfortune that comes randomly to human beings. Most importantly, this model presupposes that there is an intent condition of normality. According to this model, the purpose of returning an individual to a state of normality is the most significant component of the rehabilitation program. It is a fact that the medical model does not give the disabled and their families an opportunity to make decisions in the community. Thus, they remain spectators of the whole process (Ralston, 2009:35).
Brown, Miller & Eason (2006:463) depict that despite the fact that the medical fraternity has applauded this model, it has faced criticism for its negative impacts on society. The groups, which have criticized the model intensively, are disability movements. This is because they claim that the model is misleading in a number of issues, which it has highlighted. This has drawn the attention of normal people who are activists of the disabled. Most importantly, it is subject to scrutiny by numerous human rights groups since they find it offensive to the disabled community. The primary criticism of the model is that it fails to present the social-cultural background in which the classification of impairment happens. This is an essential component when describing impairments among disabled people. Thus, it is appropriate for the model to provide such aspects when referring to the disabled. This model also leads to a negative impact on the lives of the disabled and their families because it perceives disability as a biological construct. It is evident that many people especially the disabled perceive their condition as social and not biological as portrayed in the model.
Furthermore, the model gives a picture that disabled people are feeble and reliant. This reveals that they cannot perform duties on their own unless under supervision and guidance. The disability movements condemn this notion of the model referring to it as an abuse to the disabled people. It is noteworthy that the religious groups also share the same sentiments. As a result, they criticize the medical model since it promotes discrimination against individuals with impairments. The involvement of the religious groups in criticizing the features of this model further dents its prospects. An additional misleading component of the model, which culminates in negative impacts to the disabled, is the fact that the bodily impairment of such persons dictates the life they live.
In most cases, it describes their lives as poverty-ridden and engulfed with problems and difficulties. This perception makes other individuals perceive the disabled as a miserable group of humanity. This feature makes the disabled discouraged and unmotivated since they find themselves secluded. This further increases the level of discrimination against them. This model has gone to the extent of perceiving the disabled as non-influential in decision-making. This clearly means that their opinions are unwanted in case decisions need to be made. It is a fact that this notion has influenced their lives unenthusiastically. This especially happens at the workplace where decision-making happens without consultation. In instances where they submit their opinions, those in charge consider them as irrelevant (Fawcett, 2007:49).
The Social Model of disability
According to Barnes, Mercer, & BASW (2006:82), this model gives the socio-political aspect when describing disability in society. This model seems to be the complete opposite of the medical model, which insists on mental and physical impairments. It is evident that the social model focuses on the unfavorable and suppressive arrangement of society. As a result, it gives more emphasis on the social negative approaches that disabled individuals face in their lives. The model insists on issues relating to society’s failure to adjust to the needs of the disabled people within it. Additionally, it portrays another perspective whereby the impaired individuals are unable to acclimatize to the demands of society, which they live.
Most importantly, this model places disability in the exterior milieu and not a person’s mental or physical impairment. In describing disability as a social product, it shifts the debate from medical domination portrayed by the medical model to political domination. This means that it focuses on the influence of society on disabled individuals. It affirms that the response and reaction of society towards individuals with impairments determines their disability. On the other hand, the retort and feedback of the disabled people towards society reveal their impairments. Most prominently, it defines disability as a letdown by society in providing sufficient and apposite services to people with impairments. This means that the requirements of disabled people are inadequate in a societal setting. Thus, the disabled feel dissatisfied with the societal conditions in which they reside. This model perceives disability as socio-cultural and not biological impairment (Rix, Nind, & Sheehy, 2010:119).
This model further insists that irrespective of the societal settings in which disabled people live, they normally face subjugation and negative social feelings from society. These tend to demoralize them; thus, making them inferior to normal individuals. In addition, such incidences undermine their personality and position as equal members of society or citizens of a nation. Although the disabled seem oppressed, it is a fact that in every society there is competition between two groups. These groups are dominant and inferior, whereby they compete for recognition and status. Thus, this competition brings about conflict between these two groups (Bjarnason, 2004:28).
This theory insists that Finklestein is among the first individuals to develop a materialistic elucidation of disability. He depicted that history can be divided into three phases where the manner in which people with an impairment are socially included or excluded differ. The first phase is the period before European industrialization. During this time, there was limited social morbidity, as disabled people were included in communal activities such as the production of products and employment. The second phase is during industrialization whereby disabled people could not secure active employment. This is because they were not able to perform optimally in accordance with the factory-set standards. This resulted in their separation from the mainstream social and economic activities. Finklestein further insists that the third face has just begun. During this time, the disabled people will attain liberation from the current social oppression they are undergoing. It is noteworthy that the establishment of the factory system brought about the marginalization of individuals with physical and cognitive impairments. These people seem secluded through the introduction of isolated institutions. These include special schools for disabled individuals (Tyano, Keren, Herrman, & Cox, 2010: 322).
According to McLean & Williamson (2007:24), it is a fact that the social model of disability has brought about a shift in the manner in which people understood this concept. It is evident that this theory claims that the genesis of subjugation originates from attitudes. Thus, it is hard to establish their social setting and comprehend how this results in repressive acts. Additionally, this model does not examine the socio-political background in which traits and ethics arise and their influence in causing oppressive conduct. Furthermore, it tends to focus more on the social and political discrimination of the disabled. Thus, it fails to address the experience faced by individuals who pose these impairments. This theory fails to insist on the fact that the physical and emotional difficulties experienced by the disabled have a great impact on their lives.
The theory adopts the western notion that states that execution of rights and decision-making happens according to the wishes of individuals. This empowerment notion is greatly condemned, declined, and opposed by the disability movements. This is because it is against the accepted social traditions and practices. These critics of this model insist that a decision is supposed to be made collectively and not by an individual. This is because every member of society whether disabled or not should present their opinions for consideration. Thus, the issue of making decisions in accordance with an individual’s preference is unacceptable. It is a fact that if this notion is adopted then the disabled will be discriminated against during decision-making procedures (Barry & Yuill, 2003:120).
Combining the medical and social models of disability
These theories tend to be similar in a number of ways. It is evident that the dissimilar sets of postulations for both the medical and social models comprise an inside rational and articulate structure, and from this, each obtains a reasoned set of policy recommendations for the process and provision of disability services. Nevertheless, there is a third option, which merges the postulations concerning the nature of the societal alteration, advancement, and individual life. Such a fusion has at least the latent to offer a new and potentially inventive structure by which further discuss concerning models of disability and so, to create an inventive loom to the provision of disability services. An individual’s personal life, her place in society, and existence probability are neither wholly resolute by inborn biological distinctiveness and aptitudes, nor are they entirely prearranged by a societal, monetary, and political arrangement of society. Both theories presume that all human beings are fundamentally unreceptive, in the sagacity that they are incapable to persuade the path that their life will take (Waddell, 2004:276).
According to Kirch (2008:718), this arrangement offers no authority for the originality that is intrinsic inside all human beings, as well as the indeterminacy in the human state. Conversely, it is upheld here that personal life and the dynamics of social alteration are the creation of the incessant interactive association linking a person’s naturally gifted distinctiveness and the social setting in which he resides, which is itself determined by social, political, and economic aspects. There is thus a mutually dependent and lively liaison between a person and his society. Such an approach encourages the incorporation of biological and social aspects in shaping the human state in which neither of these two issues gets dominance from an ontological perception, but they relate interactively.
Waddell (2004:276) highlights that both theories tend to describe the position of disabled individuals in society. According to the theories, disabled people face discrimination. Furthermore, many people perceive them as unable to take care of themselves. They are not included in major decision-making procedures that take place in society. The theories further insist that the surrounding influences the lives of the disabled. It is apparent that both theories do not address the shortcomings that the disabled face. Instead, they add challenges to their lives through their description of the disabled.
Barnes, C. Mercer, G. & British Association of Social workers. (BASW). 2006, Independent futures: creating user-led disability services in a disabling society, Bristol, The Policy Press.
Barry, A. & Yuill, C. 2003, Understanding health: a sociological introduction, California, SAGE.
Bjarnason, D. 2004, New voices from Iceland: disability and young adulthood, New York, Nova Publishers.
Brown, S. Miller, W. & Eason, J. 2006, Exercise Physiology: Basis of Human Movement in Health and Disease, Maryland, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Fawcett, A. 2007, Principles of assessment and outcome measurement for occupational therapists and physiotherapists: theory, skills, and application. New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons.
Kirch, W. 2008, Encyclopedia of Public Health. New York, Springer.
McLean, S. & Williamson, L. 2007, Impairment and disability: law and ethics at the beginning and end of life. New York, Routledge.
Ralston, C. 2009, Philosophical Reflections on Disability, New York, Springer.
Rix, J. Nind, M. & Sheehy, J. 2010, Equality, Participation and Inclusion 1: Diverse Perspectives, New York, Taylor & Francis.
Scambler, G. 2008, Sociology as applied to medicine, Philadelphia, Elsevier Health Sciences.
Tyano, S. Keren, M. Herrman, H & Cox, J. 2010, Parenthood and Mental Health: A Bridge Between Infant and Adult Psychiatry, New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons.
Waddell, G. 2004, The back pain revolution. Philadelphia, Elsevier Health Sciences.
Virtual Machines Overview And Analysis
Virtual machines are often called virtual computers because that is what they are. A virtual machine emulates a computer and can run an operating system and a collection of applications, just like any physical computer would.
However, while it provides the exact same functionality, it is not based directly on physical hardware. Instead, the virtual machine uses virtual hardware with characteristics determined by a set of files, and “it is this virtual hardware that a guest operating system is installed on” (Fitzhugh, 2014, p. 8). Thus, virtual machines are also called virtual computers because they emulate the structure and functionality of an actual physical computer by means of virtual hardware.
The applications of virtual machines vary, and there may be many reasons for and benefits of having one. One of the distinct advantages is that a virtual computer allows having more than one operating system on one physical machine (Nurdianah & Wahidah, 2018). Thus, having a virtual machine with another operating system installed would allow a user to run applications designed specifically for different operating systems.
Apart from that, virtual machines have the advantage of mobility, as the lack of a rigid connection to any physical hardware provides for greater convenience in this respect. Virtual computers can be quickly and nondisruptively “migrated to different ESXi hosts, datastores, or both” without any loss of functionality (Fitzhugh, 2014, p. 221). As one can see, virtual machines have significant advantages for those interested in running more than one operating system on or making the once configured system less dependent on physical hardware. If one faces such concerns, having a virtual machine is a useful and reasonably efficient way of dealing with them.
Fitzhugh, R. (2014). vSphere Virtual Machine Management. Packt Publishing.
Nurdianah, N. F., & Wahidah, N. I. (2018). The implementation of virtual machine simulation methods on learning the operation system installation in state vocational high school 5 Makassar. International Journal of Education, Information Technology, and Others, 1(1), 116-125.
Camelopardalis – Giraffe Traits
This assignment focuses on the Camelopardalis species a type of giraffe. One of the noticeable characteristics of this species is its elongated neck that enables it to reach the topmost part of the trees to be able to get foliage for sustainability. This essay looks into the long-necked trait and what has led to its development. Amongst the synergistic population, this is a species that had taken its line of life which had been influenced by the rule of natural selection and survival for the fittest. Due to the variations in the amount of rainfall the vegetation dries up and the remains are usually at the treetops hence they are forced to adapt through this trait. Camelopardalis (camelopard) is the species that originated from the Romans; the species are depicted to contain a blend of characteristics of both the leopard and the camel. The giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) and the okapi are the two remaining populations of the family Giraffidae in this species. There exists several subspecies which were classified by the color of their skin and pattern variations. Giraffes are long-necked, even-toed land-living mammals. They are the largest ruminant animals existing. Their body is covered with uneven patches of fur whose color range from black to yellow. These patches are separated by white color, manila backgrounds (David& Bruce 1996).
Due to their selective nature of feeding, the giraffes are known to be well associated with acacia trees although their existence can be found in open woodlands, savannas, and the grasslands. Formally, their existence occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (Chad to South Africa) in the dry and bare savanna zones wherever trees existed. Nowadays, their range has greatly contradicted due to human influence and climatic changes, especially in the West African countries. (David & Bruce 1996).
Giraffes are known to have evolved from antelope-like mammals that used to exist in Asia and Europe 40-50 million years ago. The earliest was one that looked like a deer that appeared in the early Miocene. Later, the genera Palaeotragus and Samotherium were seen in the mid-Miocene. They all had taller and slender shoulders although they had shorter necks. In the late Pliocene, the subspecies of the girrafids had reduced drastically leaving only the Okapi and the modern Giraffe with the latter approximated to have had appeared about a million years ago. The okapi which resembles the giraffe has far shorter neck as compared to the modern giraffes. An adult giraffe is approximately 15-17ft tall with the length of the neck said to be 2.4m although male giraffes are said to be taller than the female ones (David& Bruce 1996).
Giraffe’s long neck showed welcoming gesturers for Scientists’ quest to explain the theory of evolution among the animals. As per Lamarck’s argument, we imagine a scenario in the long past when there was stiff competition for food by the browsing animals on the ground (David& Bruce 1996). The alternative way was the foliage which was on top of the trees. Think of a time in life where the ancestors of the giraffe were the deer or the antelope. The changes in the environment obliged the animals to look for food up the trees which led to changes of organ development structure of the animal such as prolonged neck and tall hind legged giraffes. This theory was supported by the Darwin theory of ‘survival for the fittest’ which supports the idea that the animal had a lot of competition from the browsers forcing them to search for food from the top of the trees which made the species with short necks to die off leaving the ones with long powerful necks to survive. These changes affected their next generations due to DNA modification (David& Bruce 1996).
The other theory that supports the evolution of the long neck is sexual selection. This sexual selection theory was proposed by Simons and Scheepers (David& Bruce 1996). During mating, these animals especially the males use their long necks to attack each other. This is the way they compete for the female. The one that is defeated runs away or gets killed through continuous kicking. The stronger male that remains, is the one that mates with the female. These genes being powerful and strong are expressed physically through the actions of the giraffe hence the eventual selection of the longer and stronger necks over the shorter ones.
Necking also has another function which is sexual relations between the males. Males neck each other till they mount and achieve a sexual climax. The male encounters occur severally as compared to necking between the male and the female during sexual production male and female neck for the real sexual production. Animals that we’re able to stretch above the other animals survived. They rather mated and left young ones which had either inherited some abnormal necks that will be different in one way or the other. This practice continued for a long because there are no longer giraffes with shorter or normal necks. The evolution of the giraffe shows that through sexual reproduction, hereditary genes are passed on to future generations through dictating the conformation of the DNA which carries these genes. According to David and Bruce, inheritance of favorable characteristics can only occur if there is an alteration in the gene carrier or DNA of an animal (1996).
Due to climatic changes and human interference into Giraffes ecosystems, the giraffes will be forced into smaller ecosystems where they will compete for food and mating partners. We expect them to develop very tall, powerful, and muscular necks to help them stand the competition for mating and foliage.
David, J. D., & BDruce H. W. (1996). Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection. Massachusetts: MIT Press.