Good afternoon everyone.

 In recent days our Council has been spending considerable time advocating for priority access to the vaccine for Coloradans with intellectual or developmental disabilities. Beyond the matter of access and prioritization  I've been mulling over some issues and questions about how to effectively advocate for health and safety in the context of the community of advocates with and for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. 
  1.  What does principled leadership in the interest of the common good look like in the context of a pandemic when we engage with a community that includes a cadre of vocal opponents of vaccination?
  2. Is there, or should there be, a responsibility for organizations advocating for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities to have priority access to a scarce vaccine, to challenge misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccination that some advocates who focus on Autism believe?
Here are some of the thoughts I'm puzzling over:
  • A certain percentage of the general population has to take a vaccine to offer protection against the disease.
  • People with intellectual and developmental disabilities are part of the community at large.
  • By advocating that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities should not only be considered by the community at large in vaccine distribution planning but prioritized to receive a scarce resource, we are advocating for the community at large to consider our needs and value our lives enough to give us something in short supply.
  • If people with intellectual or developmental disabilities are expecting the community-at-large to consider our needs and value our lives when resources are scarce, wouldn't it follow that we have some responsibility to consider how actions or inaction that supports or undermines the safety of the community at large  isn't consideration a two-way street?)
  • Since some (generally a vocal group of folks with ties to the Autism community) believe that vaccination causes Autism, they are unlikely to be vaccinated. They are therefore unlikely to contribute to increased safety for the community at large.
  • People with that viewpoint are part of the disability community we engage.
  • If our work is to argue that it is essential to include and integrate people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the community at large, doesn't it follow we'd want the broader community to be safe?
  • Some say taking or not taking a vaccine is a matter of choice. I see that point but if one's choice compromises another's safety, where's the accountability?
I concede it would be easier and less controversial to avoid engaging people who don't support vaccination. Ease and avoiding controversy is different than doing the right thing. I don't think it's helpful to our central cause of arguing in favor of inclusion and integration if we say our needs are more important than the needs of others and we don't invite people in our ranks to consider our impact on the whole. I'm not convinced I'm right about this. Has anybody else been thinking about these facets of advocacy in the pandemic? 

What are your thoughts?

Sincerely,

Joelle Brouner, MPA

Director 

Colorado Developmental Disabilities Council
P:  303.866-9764

**The Council needs your input to define our work for the next five years. Your Voice Matters. Please complete the survey links below.** 

                         


**********************************
The CO Developmental Disabilities Council is federally funded under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act.  Our goal is to achieve freedom and interdependence of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families to live lives as typical citizens do. The Council's system change strategies include both systems and policy advocacy and grant-making.

**********************************