Still Lost in Translation.

Pitchford et al. (2019) wrote a position paper. They looked at fights between the medical model and the disability-studies side.

The authors asked teams to stop picking sides. They said focus on what helps the client feel better day to day.

The paper found that either-or talk blocks real help. When teams fight about labels, the person with IDD loses time and care.

Staying stuck in debates hides simple shared goals like safe housing, friends, and meaningful work.

Weiss et al. (2021) backs this up. Their review of 37 studies shows college peers thrive when programs drop turf wars and plan together.

Carter (2010) sounds opposite at first. That paper says professionals must own their power. Read side by side, the two agree: own your role, then invite others to the table.

Foster (2019) warns against falling for fads like facilitated communication. Pitchford et al. (2019) would add: skip the fad-versus-hate fight and ask, "Does it raise client quality of life?"

Sandbank et al. (2021) tells reviewers to look past narrow skill gains. Pair this with Pitchford et al. (2019): stop arguing over tiny metrics and judge what matters to the client.

Next time you sit in an IEP or clinic meeting, catch either-or talk. Reframe it. Ask, "What outcome does the client want this year?" You will move the group from labels to action in under two minutes.