Recently, there has been a rise of enabled activists purporting to fight for the rights of disabled people globally. Consequently, the rise has inspired debate about whether non-disabled individuals should advocate for the rights of incapacitated persons. This essay aims to contribute to this debate and will argue that they should not advance the freedoms of disabled factions. They should desist fighting for such privileges because only physically challenged people completely comprehend their problems, have possible effective solutions to these difficulties, and are genuine about activism.
I believe that only disabled people appreciate their difficulties well enough to effectively defend their rights. Physically impaired people have many personal and professional needs, which capable persons do not understand, and even if they do, they ignore physically challenged people’s requirements immediately after they begin their daily activities. For instance, I believe most persons are aware that a section of society cannot walk without aiding equipment, including enabling technologies such as wheelchairs. However, only a few individuals care about these infirmities when fulfilling their daily duties and responsibilities. For example, it is common to find recreational facilities with no parking slots for such physically challenged persons. Even those which have such areas lack the right policies, rules, and regulations to guide nondisabled individuals on the best way to use these facilities. Consequently, one will find people parking in disabled people’s sections without any concern about where the physically challenged individuals will station their vehicles. Such occurrences only enforce the argument that other activists cannot effectively press for the rights of disabled individuals.
Nevertheless, lack of awareness is not the only reason why other people should not fight for the liberties of incapable individuals. Only physical impaired activists ought to represent disabled people because they have the best solutions to some of the problems disabled persons face. For instance, a person born without hands or who lost their arms in a road accident is not able to do their professional and personal assignments without any external help. In such a case, different people would recommend various solutions to this predicament, depending on whether they are physically able or not. For example, a non-disabled person will most likely recommend that the lame individual hire a caregiver to aid them with the obligations they cannot readily complete. On the other hand, the disabled individual might request prosthetic hands to avoid “inconveniencing” their care givers with their inabilities. Out of the two recommendations, prosthetic arms would be the best solution because they would help the lame person become self-reliant. Consequently, only handicapped activists should advance the rights of such persons.
Nevertheless, there are other reasons why these advocates should not press for the liberties of disabled individuals. For instance, most activists campaigning for the agenda of the incapable people are not genuine; they are pursuing their own self-interest instead of fighting for the freedoms of incapable individuals. There are many charity homes and non-profit organizations founded by people to take care of disabled persons. Whereas the idea is noble, the motives are immoral if not criminal. For example, as depicted by Charitywatch.org’s hall of shame, it is routine to unearth caregivers diverting funds contributed by well-wishers from these charities to their deposit accounts and spending the funds to purchase personal items. They use a small portion of the money contributed to cover the basic requirements of the needy persons, which keeps the organization afloat, and the rest for their prosperity. They run the facility, not for the benefit of disabled persons, but because it is the only way of ensuring well-wishers continue to finance it. Therefore, such activists should not promote the affairs of the disabled because they might use such affairs to advance their own selfish needs.
Regardless of these concerns, there are some dissenting voices within the society. These opposing groups argue that other individuals can effectively advance the needs of incapacitated people because it does not require one to be disabled to understand inability. They base their arguments on such folk’s ability to empathize with other persons and relate to their suffering. Whereas it is true that individuals can understand other people’s misfortunes, empathy does not empower them to be effective activists in struggling for their course. For instance, when a person is grieving, the suitable individual to console them is the one who has dealt with grief before because they understand what the bereaved is going through. If this is the ideal scenario, then it indicates that the best individual to struggle for the interests of the lame people is one of their own since they comprehend inability and its shortcomings.
Consequently, I suggest that the ideal people to advocate for the rights of the lame are the disabled persons. It is because they understand their daily challenges better than other people and can find the most effective solutions to these difficulties. Moreover, most activists purporting to advance the interests of the handicapped are only doing it for their selfish benefits. Therefore, non-disabled activists should stop pressing for the concerns of the disabled persons.