A Discursive analysis of Disabilities in relation to their etiologies

As the world continues to learn about ‘long-covid’ and all of the comorbidities associated with post-infection, ongoing discussions within disability activism and theory have been somewhat re-popularized. The idea of an individualistic approach to public health has come under widespread scrutiny as this framework ignores immunological vulnerability and viral omnipresence. However, the very definition and recognition of disability also comes into question when considering ‘long-covid’. While many would agree that the condition is disabling and/or consistent with attributes of long-term impairment ‘long-covid’ is not necessarily recognized as a disability. What are the terms of official recognition of disability, is it the medico-legal definition, self-identification, social context, or something else? Examples such as long-covid, Camp Lejeune, 9-11 first responders , and vehicular accident survivors indicate that the definitional recognition of a disability resides within the etiology of the impairment. The causal factor of the impairment whether it be natural disaster, injury, condition of birth, mutation etc. largely determines how the impairment will be referred to and advocated for. Using this analysis it can be presumed that an impairment being socially understood as disability is actually rare in comparison to other impairments/ailments. The social recognition of disability or what may be called disability-euphemisms determines the level of social support, advocacy, and resources are deployed to support those affected. For that reason, bioethicists should advocate for a holistic all-encompassing notion of disability so that the efforts and support available for various impairments might be marshaled for the betterment of all people.