title: Disability, ambivalence, and the law.
abstract: In this Article, I advance a new frame through which to organize discourse on disability and the law: the notion of ambivalence. I make two claims, one descriptive and one normative. Descriptively, I argue that ambivalence pervades encounters with disability. Disability attracts because it is a force that makes us human and disability repels because it is a force that threatens our humanity. The tension between these sentiments is not easily tolerated and tends to prompt denials of ambivalence; we embrace a conscious view of disability that belies our mixed sentiments and we suppress reactions to disability that conflict with this conscious view. Normatively, I argue that the law should express and expose ambivalence about disability. When we deny ambivalence, I argue, we cannot account for our genuine sentiments and we cannot prevent suppressed sentiments from emerging, intensified, in harmful and unanticipated forms. To avoid these dangers, the law should prevent the embrace of unequivocal views of disability as valued, devalued, or neutral, and seek to expose ambivalence about disability to the public. This prescription calls into question the prevailing orthodoxies of disability law.
authors.affiliation: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, USA.
authors.forename: John F
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Muller
mesh_terms: D000025:Abortion, Eugenic / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D001290:Attitude; D006233:Persons with Disabilities / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004651:Employment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D005260:Female; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D011247:Pregnancy; D011296:Prenatal Diagnosis; D017236:Suicide, Assisted / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D014481:United States; D028761:Withholding Treatment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence