Decisions Made Without Those Most Affected: What’s Wrong with This Picture?
In too many instances, when discussions are held and decisions made, the key decision-makers and stakeholders are at the table—but alas! Those most affected are nowhere to be found.
This is particularly true for persons with disabilities.
Oh yes, the policies, programs, and initiatives being discussed will profoundly impact their lives. And yet, meaningful consultation with the very people who will bear the consequences is often an afterthought—if it happens at all.
Just ask a certain Canadian government department how they went about developing a medical form for travelers with disabilities. You would think that involving Canadians with disabilities in the process would be a given, right? Apparently not. Somehow, in the rush to create a form that directly affects their ability to travel, they forgot to seek meaningful input from the very people who would use it.
Should we be surprised, then, when we see that peace talks are taking place to discuss an end to the war in Ukraine, but Ukraine itself is not invited to participate?
What’s wrong with this picture?
This pattern of exclusion is neither new nor accidental. It reflects a troubling trend in governance, policy-making, and global diplomacy, where those in power assume they know what’s best for those without a seat at the table. Whether it’s disability rights, war, economic policies, or social reforms, decisions are too often made by people with little direct experience of the issues they are addressing.
This has to change. True progress requires meaningful inclusion—not as a token gesture, but as a fundamental principle. People with disabilities must be involved in shaping the policies that impact their daily lives. Countries that are at war must have a voice in the peace talks that determine their future.
Decisions about us must never be made without us. Anything less is unacceptable.
I’ll leave you with this to ponder.
A powerful conceptual illustration showing a decision-making meeting where key stakeholders are seated at a large table, but individuals most affected—such as a person in a wheelchair and a visually impaired person—are standing outside the room, looking in through a glass window. The people inside the room appear engaged in discussion, unaware of those left out. The atmosphere conveys exclusion and frustration. The style is realistic with dramatic lighting to emphasize the divide.
Image = a chain of human-shaped paper dolls where the doll at the end is in the process of being snipped off with scissors.
To learn more about me as an award winning sight loss coach and advocate visit http://www.donnajodhan.com