A revaluation of the cultural dimension of disability policy in the European Union: The impact of digitization and web accessibility

Reflecting the commitments undertaken by the EU through the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the European Disability Strategy 2010–2020 not only gives a prominent position to accessibility, broadly interpreted, but also suggests an examination of the obligations for access to cultural goods and services. The European Disability Strategy 2010–2020 expressly acknowledges that EU action will support national activities to make sports, leisure, cultural and recreational organizations and activities accessible, and use the possibilities for copyright exceptions in the Directive 2001/29/EC (Infosoc Directive). This article discusses to what extent the EU has realized the principle of accessibility and the right to access cultural goods and services envisaged in the UNCRPD. Previous research has yet to explore how web accessibility and digitization interact with the cultural dimension of disability policy in the European Union. This examination attempts to fill this gap by discussing to what extent the European Union has put this cultural dimension into effect and how web accessibility policies and the digitization of cultural materials influence these efforts

Improving Oral Hygiene Skills by Computer-Based Training: A Randomized Controlled Comparison of the Modified Bass and the Fones Techniques

Background: Gingivitis and other plaque-associated diseases have a high prevalence in western communities even though the majority of adults report daily oral hygiene. This indicates a lack of oral hygiene skills. Currently, there is no clear evidence as to which brushing technique would bring about the best oral hygiene skills. While the modified Bass technique is often recommended by dentists and in textbooks, the Fones technique is often recommended in patient brochures. Still, standardized comparisons of the effectiveness of teaching these techniques are lacking. Methodology/Principal Findings: In a final sample of n=56 students, this multidisciplinary, randomized, examiner-blinded, controlled study compared the effects of parallel and standardized interactive computer presentations teaching either the Fones or the modified Bass technique. A control group was taught the basics of tooth brushing alone. Oral hygiene skills (remaining plaque after thorough oral hygiene) and gingivitis were assessed at baseline and 6, 12, and 28 weeks after the intervention. We found a significant group×time interaction for gingivitis (F(4/102)=3.267; p=0.016; e=0.957; ?2=0.114) and a significant main effect of group for oral hygiene skills (F(2/51)=7.088; p=0.002; ?2=0.218). Fones was superior to Bass; Bass did not differ from the control group. Group differences were most prominent after 6 and 12 weeks. Conclusions/Significance: The present trial indicates an advantage of teaching the Fones as compared to the modified Bass technique with respect to oral hygiene skills and gingivitis. Future studies are needed to analyze whether the disadvantage of teaching the Bass technique observed here is restricted to the teaching method employed. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register http://www.drks.de/DRKS0000348

The Ashley Treatment: Improving Quality of Life or Infringing Dignity and Rights?

The ‘Ashley treatment’ (growth attenuation, removal of the womb and breasts buds of a severely disabled child) has raised much ethical contro- versy. This article starts from the observation that this debate suffers from a lack of careful philosophical analysis which is essential for an ethical assessment. I focus on two central arguments in the debate, namely an argument defending the treatment based on quality of life and an argument against the treatment based on dignity and rights. My analysis raises doubts as to whether these arguments, as they stand in the debate, are philosophically robust. I reconstruct what form good arguments for and against the treatment should take and which assumptions are needed to defend the according positions. Concerning quality of life (Section 2), I argue that to make a discussion about quality of life possible, it needs to be clear which particular conception of the good life is employed. This has not been sufficiently clear in the debate. I fill this lacuna. Regarding rights and dignity (section 3), I show that there is a remarkable absence of references to general philosophical theories of rights and dignity in the debate about the Ashley treatment. Consequently, this argument against the treatment is not sufficiently developed. I clarify how such an argument should proceed. Such a detailed analysis of arguments is necessary to clear up some confusions and ambiguities in the debate and to shed light on the dilemma that caretakers of severely disabled children face