| Home | Overview | Disability | Employment | Services | Education | Benefits | Business | Advice | Links | More... |
|
These pages do not apply outside the United Kingdom.
|
| Home | Overview | Disability | Employment | Services | Education | Benefits | Business | Advice | Links | More... |
|
These pages do not apply outside the United Kingdom.
|
Under Schedule 1 para 6 # :
"an impairment which would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities, but for the fact that measures are being taken to to treat or correct it, is to be treated as having that effect"
It can therefore be a disability even if it is not evident because measures taken are correcting it. Measures "include, in particular, medical treatment and use of a prosthesis or other aid".
On the face of it, any speech techniques used by a person who stammers to correct his speech could fall within this provision. It does not say that the measures are "limited to" medical treatment or prostheses.
On the other hand paras A7-9 of the 1996 guidance (DRC's 'Guidance' web page) say that if a person can reasonably behave in a way such that the substantial adverse effect ceases or is sufficiently reduced there is no "disability". Para A8 specifically acknowledges that "coping" strategies may cease to work in certain circumstances, "for example, where someone who stutters ... is placed under stress", and the possibility that the effects may reoccur in these circumstances must be taken into account. Para A9 goes on to say (obviously in the light of Schedule 1 para 6) that behaviour might be disregarded if advised by a medical practitioner.
However the inclusion of people who stammer in para A8 clearly seems to imply that some coping strategies they ought to adopt are not within Schedule 1 para 6. Which coping strategies?
One possible approach is to limit para 6 to measures "advised by a medical practionner". One might say therefore that strategies recommended by a speech and language therapist (eg block modification), or very possibly strategies recommended by other practitioners (e.g. costal breathing recommended by Dave McGuire or the Starfish Project) are disregarded. However, on this approach, if a person who stammers develops techniques on his own which work for him, or possibly gets them from a local support group, then para 6 does not apply and one has to look at the actual speech produced by using those techniques. However apart from the guidance (which is not a statute but has to be regarded by the courts), there seems to be little logical reason to draw this distinction. Also, on the face of Schedule 1 para 6 measures taken to correct a stammer can be taken into account wherever they come from. Furthermore, the guidance is only intended for use when the statute is not clear.
Another possible interpretation is that "coping strategy" means things such as word substitution which would not be recommended by therapists. But then para A8 would apparently want a person who stammers to use that strategy, which makes no sense.
Another possible way of looking at it maybe is that some people have a way of speaking where they are not stammering but you can hear - if you know them at least - that they are trying not to stammer. Maybe there is a slight jerkiness, or unnatural deliberateness. You can tell it is not free-flowing speech. This could possibly be a coping strategy within para A8 and outside Schedule 1 para 6. However, I am not at all clear whether one could readily distinguish this from the type of thing recommended by speech therapists.
Personally I would want to say that the disregard extends indeed to all measures actually being taken by a person to correct the stammer, whether recommeded by someone else (professional or otherwise) or developed by himself, and including even things such as word substitution which I understand a speech therapist would try to get one not to do. After all word substitution is just a mask for a stammer which is undoubtedly there. I think the wording of the statute can readily be interpreted in this way, and it would help address the very significant degree to which the problem of stammering is hidden from general view.
It should be appreciated that this view apparently contradicts para A8 of the guidance (which is not however a statute). I would be interested to hear of any other possible interpretations.
The courts will have to decide, or the guidance could be amended to clarify the issue.
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 1999-2001
Last updated 12th June, 2001
Definition
Overt stammering
Variation
Therapy
Longer term
Covert stammering
Old Green Card
Any stammer covered?
Reluctance to be seen as 'disabled'
ICD
Postion from May 2006
