I attended the annual Essilor Symposium last week (see write up in next week’s issue) and enjoyed some very heated debate around some of the current topics of controversy. One discussion, triggered by the always provocative Dr Glyn Walsh, was centred around the 2010 Equality Act.
The Act was introduced as a way of unifying the various laws ensuring that all are treated equally irrespective of gender, ethnicity, physical or mental impairment or belief and so on. With specific regard to ‘impairment’, Glyn highlighted that ametropia is exempt from the list of impairments covered by the Act which states this exemption ‘in relation to the impairment of a person’s sight, to the extent that the impairment is, in the person’s case, correctable by spectacles or contact lenses or in such other ways as may be prescribed’.
This raises a couple of points. Firstly, a number of correctable or treatable conditions are listed as covered by the Act (from, say, some prosthetic devices to currently treatable and manageable diseases) while ametropia is not. A high myope, however, may be corrected by spectacles but is unable to, for example, play rugby or swim to the same degree or with a similar level of accessibility as an emmetrope. The conclusion has to be simply that the cost of providing full equality to the ametrope reliant on correction outweighs any threat of citizen rebellion to have legal parity with, for example, those needing a hearing correction.
Secondly, the discussion around this brought out the very stigmatising nature of the terminology used when discussing any forms of impairment. The terms ‘impaired’ and ‘disabled’ are often used as if synonymous, but most would suggest the latter carries much more stigmatising and emotive baggage. I prefer the old WHO distinction – an impairment is what is stopping you. A disability is something you can no longer do.
