That's why I quoted that passage: because yes, having CFS is inherently negative. In a perfect world, social-model-wise, most people would still much rather not have it, and not because of any irrational prejudice. It objectively sucks.
And she says a couple of places that rejecting the "medical model" is not the same as rejecting medicine. It obviously has a huge role to play in helping disabled people cure or at least cope with our symptoms and underlying conditions.
The point is that while SOME of the suckiness of CFS comes from the physiological symptoms (and it's important to do as much as possible to alleviate that suckiness), some of it also depends on social things. For example, suppose you're bedbound and have no family willing to take care of you. Then in the wrong social context? You die. In the right one you get a pension, a carer, meals on wheels etc. Those are two VERY different levels of suckiness resulting from the same physiological symptoms.
Thus when we judge "How sucky is it to have condition X, and how can we best alleviate that suckiness?"(*) we have to look at both the medical AND the social factors. (And yes, the negative social effect of any disability support need to be weighted up against the benefits, the same way as the side effects of any treatment. The point is that they're part of the analysis) It may be that for you, medical help is the most important factor. But that's not true for everyone.
(*)Which in a lot of cases is not necessarily the right way to frame the question anyway, but I'm sleepy so it will have to do
no subject
And she says a couple of places that rejecting the "medical model" is not the same as rejecting medicine. It obviously has a huge role to play in helping disabled people cure or at least cope with our symptoms and underlying conditions.
The point is that while SOME of the suckiness of CFS comes from the physiological symptoms (and it's important to do as much as possible to alleviate that suckiness), some of it also depends on social things. For example, suppose you're bedbound and have no family willing to take care of you. Then in the wrong social context? You die. In the right one you get a pension, a carer, meals on wheels etc. Those are two VERY different levels of suckiness resulting from the same physiological symptoms.
Thus when we judge "How sucky is it to have condition X, and how can we best alleviate that suckiness?"(*) we have to look at both the medical AND the social factors. (And yes, the negative social effect of any disability support need to be weighted up against the benefits, the same way as the side effects of any treatment. The point is that they're part of the analysis) It may be that for you, medical help is the most important factor. But that's not true for everyone.
(*)Which in a lot of cases is not necessarily the right way to frame the question anyway, but I'm sleepy so it will have to do