AlderM., “The Disabled: Their Health Care and Health Insurance,”U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990, available at <http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/disabled.htm> (last visited October 7, 2013).
2.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics Summary,”2012, available at <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm> (last visited October 7, 2013).
WilliamsA., “Response: QUALYfying the Value of Life,”Journal of Medical Ethics13, no. 3 (1987): 123;.
7.
AmundsonR., s.v. “Health Resource Rationing,” in AlbrechtG., ed., Encyclopedia of Disability (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006): 841–845. Important differences may be elided in how this argument is made. One view is metaphysical: That people with disabilities are different in kind from others whose lives are of greater value. Another view is normative: That because they are different in kind (or perhaps for some other reason), they have different moral status and so whatever value their lives have will count less than the lives of the non-disabled. Still another view is empirical: That because of their disability, their lives will feature experiences of lesser value, so even if they count equally the same benefit will be worth more for a person without the disability. An illustration of this last view is the claim that blind people, because they cannot experience visual perceptions, live less rich lives and therefore benefit less from life-saving cancer treatment than do sighted people. An illustration of the metaphysical view is that blind people are different in kind from sighted people, and an illustration of the normative view is that they are therefore of lesser moral status.
8.
SilversA., “Predicting Genetic Disability While Commodifying Health,” in BickenbachJ.WachbroitR.WassermanD., eds., Quality of Life and Human Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005): 43–66.
9.
“For Medicare to cover a power wheelchair or scooter, the physician must state that the patient needs it due to a medical condition from which the individual suffers. Medicare won't cover a power wheelchair or scooter that is only needed for the individual to go outside the home.” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “Medicare Coverage of Durable Medical Equipment & Other Devices,” at 5, available at <http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11045.pdf> (last visited October 8, 2013).
10.
For example, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana considers a power wheelchair not medically necessary if it is needed for ambulation outside of the home. Consequently, an individual who can walk from his bed to the bathroom, but not the additional distance to the corner grocery store or the doctor's office two blocks away would not qualify for a mobility scooter that enabled him to obtain food and medical care. Medical Codes, “Wheelchairs and Wheelchair Accessories,” available at <https://www.bcbsmt.com/MedReview/Policies/WheelchairsandAccessories/v101.aspx> (last visited October 8, 2013).
11.
LaguT., “Access to Subspecialty Care for Patients with Mobility Impairment: A Survey,”Archives of Internal Medicine158, no. 6 (2013): 441–446.
PendoE., “Disability, Equipment Barriers, and Women's Health: Using the ADA to Provide Meaningful Access,”St. Louis University Journal of Health Law and Policy2, no. 1 (2008): 15–56.
14.
HeslopP., Confidential Inquiry into Premature Deaths of People with Learning Disabilities: Final Report, 2013, available at <http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cipold/fullfinalreport.pdf> (last visited October 8, 2013).
FriedC., “Equality and Rights in Medical Care,”Hastings Center Report6, no. 1 (1976): 29–34.
17.
DegenerT., “A Human Rights Model for Disability,” in SteinM.LangfordM., eds., Disability Social Rights (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2014).
18.
HannumH., “The Concept of Human Rights,” in International Human Rights: Problems of Law, Policy, and Practice (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2006): At 31–33.
19.
Id.
20.
FaganA., s.v. “Human Rights,” in FieserJ.DowdenB., eds., 2005, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at <http://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/> (last visited October 8, 2013).
21.
Id. (Fagan); for further discussion,
22.
see also FinnisJ., Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980)
23.
and ShueH., Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980).
24.
TownleyCynthia, “Animals and Humans: Grounds for Separation?”Journal of Social Philosophy41, no. 4 (2010): 512–526. For a discussion of human exceptionalism in regard to cognitive disability,
SilversA.FrancisL. P., “Thinking about the Good: Reconfiguring Metaphysics (or Not) for People with Cognitive Disabilities,”Metaphilosophy40, nos. 3–4 (2009) – reprinted in Feder KittayE.CarlsonL., eds., Cognitive Disability and Its Challenge to Moral Philosophy (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).
34.
SilversA., “Embracing Freedom for Disability: The Hardest Thing To Do,”Keynote Address for Menschen Recht Inklusion: International Symposium on the Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities into Practice, Evangelische Fachhochschule RWL, Bochum, Germany, June 6–8, 2013, available at <http://www.efh-bochum.de/brk/pdf/doku/Silvers_Human_Rights_engl.doc> (last visited on October 22, 2013).
KelmanM.GillianL., Jumping the Queue: An Inquiry into the Legal Treatment of Students with Learning Disabilities (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998).
40.
See Silvers, supra note 28.
41.
See Degener, supra note 14.
42.
ParensE., ed., Surgically Shaping Children: Technology, Ethics, and the Pursuit of Normality (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006).
43.
See Silvers, supra note 28.
44.
TurnerB. S., “Outline of the Theory of Human Rights,”Sociology27, no. 3 (1993): 489–512, at 501–507.
45.
PutnamR. A., “Neither a Beast nor a God,”Social Theory and Practice26, no. 2 (2000): 177–200.
46.
SilversA.FrancisL. P., “Justice through Trust: Disability and the ‘Outlier’ Problem in Social Contract Theory,”Ethics116, no. 1 (2005): 40–77.
47.
Id.
48.
SieghartP., The Lawful Rights of Mankind: An Introduction to the International Legal Code of Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).
49.
Carreira da SilvaF., “Outline of a Social Theory of Rights: A Neo-pragmatist Approach,”European Journal of Social Theory, forthcoming 2013.
We have argued elsewhere that even people who are not articulate are able to formulate conceptions of their good that require respect from others (see Silvers and Francis, supra note 27;.
54.
see FrancisL. P.SilversA., “Liberalism and Independently Scripted Accounts of the Good: Meeting the Challenge of Dependent Agency,”Social Theory and Practice (2007): 311–334.
For example, Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2000). Courts have interpreted the statutory language – place of business – literally.
57.
29 U.S.C. § 794 (2013).
58.
42 U.S.C. § 12132 (2013).
59.
Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985).
60.
FrancisL. P.SilversA., “Debilitating Alexander v. Choate: ‘Meaningful Access’ to Health Care for People with Disabilities,”Fordham Urban Law Journal35, no. 3 (2008): 437–477.
GabelJ., “Taxing Cadillac Plans may Produce Chevy Results,”Health Affairs29, no. 1 (2010): 174–181.
64.
CMS, Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, “Additional Information on Proposed State Essential Health Benefits Benchmark Plans,” available at <http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Data-Resources/ehb.html> (last visited October 9, 2013).
RabinR. C., “Could Health Overhaul Incentive Hurt Some?”New York Times, April 12, 2010, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/health/13land.html> (last visited October 9, 2013). For a criticism of such “fat taxes,”
67.
see RauschR. L., “Health Cover(age)ing: The Weight of Health Insurance Fat Taxes,”Nebraska Law Review90, no. 4 (2012): 201–251.