Nobody denies that children with disabilities must have varied experiences and given opportunities to discover their potential. It is the ‘how’ it is done that sometimes crosses the line of what is available and what is demanded.
Having a disability does not put one in the position to demand life’s extras. It is unfortunate for one to have a disability, but it should not be used to generate pity and sympathy, to get advantages and benefits out of it. And the public should be sensitive enough to realise and understand that a disability is not the same as being helpless and pitiful. In fact, many people with disabilities are self-sufficient, independent and have pride. They do not need pity and lesser still, hand-outs and freebies.
Unfortunately, this way of thinking is rife in our society, still. The public view people with disabilities with much pity, and also some people with disabilities feel they are entitled to life’s extras, just because they have a disability.
Take for example, music lessons. Many people with varied forms of disabilities would undoubtedly benefit from exposure to music, be it music therapy, or the study of music itself. And there are even more people without an obvious disability who could also benefit from musical experiences. But it is the former that gets all the ‘perks’, usually in the form of free lessons.
I see many children who could definitely benefit from some form of musical experience, but they do not receive any because the family truly is unable to afford such ‘luxuries’. So they continue with life, without that very dimension that could help them get on, academically, socially, emotionally, and developmentally. And I see children with disabilities, getting free music lessons, even though their families are quite financially capable of paying for such services. On top of that, there are families who actually demand such free services, and complain when they do not receive any. This, I cannot fathom.
Since when, is having a disability equated entitlements and benefits? Why are people so willing to offer ‘freebies’ to those with a disability, yet turn away others who could clearly benefit from their services, and who can hardly afford them in the first place?
I believe, regardless of abilities (and disabilities), economic forces do determine the availability of services and resources. If a child from a poor family has no opportunity to learn music even though the child could benefit from such a programme, why should a child with a disability be readily given such a service at no cost, even though it is not beyond the family’s means to pay for such services? Not all people without disabilities get the best experiences and exposures in life, why should those with disabilities be different?
Worse, many of these recipients of such ‘free’ services are not very appreciative either – commenting on the ‘poor’ level of services they are receiving, or that what they are given is ‘not enough’. They have also come to expect that all services given should be made ‘free’, at no cost!
I find this trend worrying. Young children with disabilities may grow up with a very wrong idea of what charity means. They may grow up thinking that just because they have a disability, they are entitled to ‘freebies’, and won’t even bother to work for anything they want. I don’t think this is the way our society should be moving.
My proposal: for those who are truly unable to afford the full cost of service, a token amount should still be paid. I don’t believe everything should be given, if the appreciation is not really there. I find that some people with disabilities are fighting NOT for equal opportunities, but an unequal one, as long as it is in THEIR favour.
