Good point, I agree. She wants to go kayaking..

So let's continue with your approach. She looks on the internet to find a kayaking club. She can do that because she can type and read and understand the words on the screen. Then she phones up the club and arranges a first lesson. Cool! Still no need for support.

Yep.

Under what circumstances might someone need support?

Do they need support?

Under what circumstances might someone need support? — bert1

Some people certainly do.

Yep.

Is there an argument here?

I'm not sure. We seem to broadly agree, but you said my thinking is medical model, and that I delimit people by saying they can't do things, and you seemed to suggest these were bad. Also, you're not answering my questions very often.

I'm interested in when you think someone needs support. I think it's when they can't do something that they want or need to do without that support. Which is a functional test and involves the word 'can't' which you seem to object to (although I have never met a disabled person who objects to the use of this word). So I'm interested in an alternative approach. It might help me a lot with my work if I've been getting this wrong.

you're not answering my questions very often. — bert1

Yeah, I am. Maybe not in the way you expected.

A person needs support to achieve some outcome if, as things stand, they are unable to achieve the goal on their own.

No "can't".

A person needs support to achieve some outcome if, as things stand, they are unable to achieve the goal on their own. — Banno

OK, we agree. I see no great difference between 'unable' and 'can't'.

Seems you are doing what is appropriate, working with what your clients want and providing for them as needed.

Carer training and interaction is usually, mostly medical, as it should be; but this leaves them with only the language of the medical model with which to explain the complex human interactions that they have to deal with directly - doctors and other medical professionals are usually able to abstract themselves from the nitty gritty, nurses and carers have to deal with bed pans and tears.

The social model, and especially the capabilities approach, provide language that can be used to deal with the humanity of those one cares for, in a more "holistic" way. That is, it emphasises the ethical dimension.

It's a different way to think and talk about what you already do.

Here's an article from a few months back - starting with quote from Charlie Kirk - about disability as the canary in the coal mine of social policy.

The US right is coming for disabled people. Here’s why that threatens everyone

It makes pretty sad reading.

This quote struck me as salient to this thread:

“Disabled people were not always marginalized; we were incorporated into society in the ancient past,” said Dr Alexandra F Morris, a lecturer in classical studies at the University of Lincoln who studies disability in ancient Egypt. “We have the means to create and return to a more equitable society if we wish to, but it is our modern-day thinking that sees disability as marginalized … and a burden.”

doctors and other medical professionals are usually able to abstract themselves from the nitty gritty — Banno

I know a couple that do lose a fair bit of nights sleep over their patients. Not the kind of doctors that cut up rat brains, but the ones handling dudes usually strive to abstract themselves but only succeeds so-so.