1 Comment

It's an interesting lens.

Disability that is compensated for may not be truly no longer a burden, but rather a burden shifted to an invisible load on the mental capacity that other people could be using to keep up with something more universal like the housework. Or to material expenditures - money for pills and planners and things.

The lens of a load that is shifted to taking up mental (and physical) resources for mitigating the failure of a once-autonomic process seems also useful for thinking about less mental disabilities. One's balance fails, and now it takes mental energy to cross a room without falling. One's digestion falters, and now one must schedule more appointments to get vitamin B shots. One's pancreas fails, and now one must mind one's sugar intake assiduously.

Mitigation strategies that require physical resources can have the bill footed by someone else. But any part of a strategy that exacts a toll on a person's mental energy or planning capacity or time mostly can't except via the invasive strategy of having other person(s) minding the disabled person's needs on top of their own. This has implications for accounting where the ultimate burden lies and who is handling it. A strategy that costs a healthcare provider little but requires a lot of time and focus from the disabled person may be inequity disguised as wise frugality. The benefits of improving a person's mental health directly may be intangible but more valuable than they appear on a balance sheet.

Expand full comment