Home Overview Disability Employment Services Education Benefits Business Advice Links More...
These pages do not apply outside the United Kingdom.

Failure to modify behaviour

This page looks at how far if at all para B7 of the 2006 Guidance might require a person who stammers to take reasonable steps to reduce the effects of his stammer. For therapy generally, see my Therapy page.

The "2006 Guidance" means the Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability which took effect from 1st May 2006, on the DRC's 'Guidance' web page.
For discrimination which occured before 1st May 2006, see my previous web page.
Introduction

Para B7 of the 2006 Guidance says that one should take into account how far the person can reasonably be expected to modify his behaviour so as to reduce or prevent effects of an impairment on normal day-to-day activities (see Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Virdi, 2006). Is this relevant for people who stammer?

The first point to make is that the 2006 Guidance is not law. Courts must take the Guidance into account but they are not bound to follow it. I mention this because it is not at all clear that para B7 is supported by the legislation or case law. Courts will not necessarily follow para B7. However, I discuss the position below in case they do.

Speech techniques

What if a person is not using a strategy or technique? Could a court ask itself whether it would be reasonable for him to do so, and try and decide how his speech would be if he did?.

In all likelihood not. Firstly, the kind of examples given in para B7 do not suggest that this is the kind of behavioural modification it has in mind. Furthermore, para B7 will doubtless not apply in any event if the modifications to behaviour fall within Schedule 1 para 6, which I believe speech techniques should do (see my Therapy page).

Even disregarding these points, an argument such as "Well, he wouldn't stammer if only he did such and such" shows a lack of understanding of stammering. Certain techniques may be useful for some people who stammer but not for others. In any event it can be difficult to learn to apply them in the 'outside world', beyond the therapy setting. Further, they are likely to break down sometimes (or often). In addition, the person may well relapse more generally, at least for periods. Furthermore some techniques may involve a loss of spontaneity which the person legitimately values.

I very much doubt therefore that a tribunal could legimately try to consider how a person's stammer would be were he trying to use certain techniques. Indeed I would expect it to be impossible for a tribunal to make any meaningful determination on this.

Other steps to reduce stammering

At most, the effect of para B7 may be that, for example, a person who stammers more when tired should get a good night's sleep, so far as it is reasonable to expect him to do this. This appears to be more the kind of behavioural modification envisaged by the Guidance.

Even here though, it seems unreasonable to say that a person who stammers should reasonably be expected to get an early night rather than going out partying with his friends. That does not appear to be a reasonable way to be expected to restrict one's life. The example given in the Guidance of unreasonable behaviour - namely parachuting for a person with a bad back - is quite an extreme one. It might perhaps be reasonable to get an early night before a particularly important event the next day, but this would not help one's speech in normal day-to-day situations generally, which is what the 'disability' definition focusses on.

In any event, this type of modification to behaviour is unlikely to tip the balance, such that one's stammer has a less than 'substantial' (ie less than 'minor or trivial') adverse effect.

Avoidance strategies

Practices such as word substitution and avoidance are not steps that it should be considered reasonable for a person with a stammer to take in order to speak fluently, given that a lot of therapy aims at eliminating this type of strategy. (More on word substitution)

Para B8 example

There is an example specifically on stammering soon after para B7, at the end of para B8. The example may or may not have anything to do with para B7. See Hiding the stammer - para B8 example for more on this, where I say amongst other things that the example may be a misapplication of para B7. In any case, I do not think the example alters the above.


Top

Homepage | DDA in outline | Meaning of "disability" | Employment | Goods and services | Education | Human Rights Act | Proposed changes | Social security | Advice | Links | What's new | Site index | Disclaimer

© Allan Tyrer 1999-2006
Last updated 2nd July, 2006 (minor update adding Virdi case 26th December 2006)