Labels for Disabilities

* What was the point of Romy Wyllie’s “Labels Are Less Important Than Attitudes” (Commentary, April 23)? If it was to use as many derogatory names in a column as possible, I think she drove it home. Wyllie is right, putting a “nicer” name on a debilitating disability doesn’t change the disability. What it does do is lend respect to the person who has the disability. When I tell people my children have special needs, I leave the listener the option of asking more information, instead of putting a word picture in their head by saying “autistic” and “learning disabled.”

Sometimes I play the “I wonder” game with myself and try to imagine what my kids would be without their disabilities. And then it hits me, they would still be themselves. They might be able to communicate better, but they would still like ice cream and going to the park. They might be able to relate better to their peers, but they would still laugh at silly cartoons, like going to the library and wearing their Star Wars pajamas. Changing their disability doesn’t change essentially who they are--kids.

I can’t make people understand my children, nor can I make them accept them. What I can do is try to educate people about my children’s disabilities. What I can do is try to include my children in as many mainstream activities as feasibly possible. Hiding my kids in a back room and letting people call them unacceptable names isn’t going to do anything for them, and it isn’t going to do anything for those who are afraid or just don’t understand. It’s important we keep insisting “people first, disability second.” Maybe one day, people will finally figure that one out.

MICHELLE SCHREDER

Yorba Linda