© Media dis&dat blog
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1c714/1c71495681b2304b1b85d242334a9792be8a814d" alt=""
First, journalists should look at the basic definition of the word "bound." It means "confined by bonds; tied." The example usage given is "bound and gagged hostages." Wheelchair users (the most accurate term) are not hostages to their chairs; they are actually liberated by them.
Even The Associated Press Stylebook admonishes writers not to use the terms “confined to a wheelchair” or “wheelchair-bound” because "people use wheelchairs for independent mobility."
Disability studies scholar Simi Linton says in her 1998 book, Claiming Disability, that the stereotyping phrases “wheelchair-bound” or “confined to a wheelchair” grant more power to the chair than the person. She says, to more accurately report that someone uses a wheelchair, “not only indicates the active nature of the user and the positive way that wheelchairs increase mobility and activity, but recognizes that people get in and out of wheelchairs for different activities: driving a car, going swimming, sitting on the couch, or occasionally, for making love.”
When journalists use these terms, they misrepresent disability, as well as showing their misunderstanding of the experience of people who use wheelchairs. Disability policy consultant June Issacson Kailes explained many years ago in her discussion of disability language that wheelchairs are not binding or confining but actually increase mobility, speed, and ability. For many people, wheelchairs increase their personal freedom.
This is not just some rant from me. I have actually studied the use of these stereotyping words about disability by the news media. Sadly, my findings were that the use of the term "wheelchair-bound" actually increased in both The New York Times and The Washington Post from 1990 to 2000.
So I'll say it again -- Don't use it. Ever.
P.S. The picture is a T-shirt from The Nth Degree.