Age Appropriate For Who?

Doesn't his facial expression say it all?

I understand the prinicpals behind the policies that are made to protect people with disabilties but sometimes policies can be disempowering for the people they are designed to help. What I am referring to is "age appropriate activities" for people with disabilities. This prinicpal was designed to create "normalisation" for people with disabilities.It's kind of a blanket policy that envelops the entire disability sector and I am afraid that some people, especially those from one target group in particular are being negatively affected by it & that is people with profound intellecutal disability. It is my understanding, from all the training and study I have done, that good programs are planned, desinged and created with a person centred approach. This person centred approach is taken so that the person being supported is in the best possible situation to live a life of THEIR choosing, not a life that society deems to be acceptable.Is it really societies 'right' to take away experiences that may actually be positive and meaningful to another person, in order to create a feeling of normalcy.... Normal for who?? People with profound intellectual disabiltiy, are being disempowered by being discouraged from participating in activities or engaging in play that is considered childlike because of such a prinicpal. The definition of Age Appropriateness as I understand it is " Activities and/or approaches that meet with the chronological age of a person" ..... I ask how this is supposed to help a person with a greatly reduced Intellectual Quotient, for exampled a 40 year person with the intellecual function of a 5 year old. The way a 40 year old person with a profound intellectual disability see's the world is vastly different from their age-equivelant peers.If a person likes to play with a doll, watch a childrens show and they are actively engaged and happy when doing so, then how can that be harmful to them...How can it be wrong?? and wrong for who?? It does not make sense to me, to force a person into participating in an actiivty that holds no interest for them. An activity that finds them disengaged, passive & unhappy. What good do they get from this??? How is this meaningful for them?? Is this promoting a "GOOD LIFE" for them? If an activity holds value and worth for that person then who the hell are we to take that away from them. I would think that this is a breech of their human right! I would then even go as far as to say it was a "Restrictive Practice", that restricts their rights to personal expression and to access of something that holds value to them.I believe that there is a place for age appropriate activities but I think there also needs to be flexibility with regards to this.... it's not a one box fits all kinda scenario!!!