Court Decision: 107 Federal Reporter, 3rd Series, 934; 1997 March 5 (date of decision). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that HIV infection interferes with reproduction and is therefore a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ms. Abbott was a patient of Dr. Bragdon, a dentist. She was HIV positive and asymptomatic. Bragdon refused to fill a cavity in his office for that reason. He offered to treat her within a hospital setting, but at greater cost to her. She brought suit under the ADA alleging that her status as HIV positive was a disability. The First Circuit agreed, finding that being HIV positive had a profound impact upon her ability to engage in intimate sexual activity, gestation, childbirth, child rearing and nurturing familial relations. The Court held that these activities were all major life activities, not lifestyle choices, and that Ms. Abbott was disabled for the purposes of the ADA.

This article identifies and analyzes equity issues in assistive technology policy for adults with disabilities in the United States and makes recommendations for further research and advocacy. The following equity issues are considered: (a) who has access to assistive technology, (b) which technology is available, (c) who decides on the technology, and (d) who controls or determines the allocation of assistive technology. The discussion considers the role of stereotyping and discrimination in policy-making and how these affect equity. There is a need to rethink the concepts of normal and abnormal, and to reformulate policy more on the basis of the values of empowerment, independence, and community integration.

Court Decision: 502 New York Supplement, 2d Series 325; 1986 Feb 11 (date of decision). Two local school boards and a concerned parent brought an action before the New York Supreme Court for an order prohibiting New York City education and health officials from admitting an unidentified child with AIDS to any public school within the city attended by students without AIDS. The Court held that the defendants were not required by law to exclude AIDS children from the classroom because AIDS could not be classified as a communicable, infectious, or contagious disease. Moreover, said the Court, an order in favor of plaintiffs would usurp the function of the city health commissioner and violate the antidiscrimination provisions of the federal Rehabilitation Act.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。