The metaphor connecting blindness and fair-impartial legal treatment has been embodied in the Wes... more The metaphor connecting blindness and fair-impartial legal treatment has been embodied in the Western world for hundreds of years through the image of a blindfolded woman who represents justice. Nonetheless, not much has been written about the complexities and obstacles that stand in the way of placing actual blind judges on the bench. Nor has the 'Icon of Justice' been used to represent the social struggle for disability rights. This article is the first to turn a spotlight on the long history of blind people in England and the United States serving as members of the judiciary and to explore how this integration dovetails with the symbolic importance of blindness in the iconography of law. The article delves into the varied connotations of blindness throughout Western culture and legal history, specifically in its purported relationship to the objectivity of the judge. Finally, the article contrasts examples of the inclusion of blind people in Anglo-American legal systems with an Israeli case, revealing existing barriers that still prevent many blind people from entering the legal profession.
This paper highlights the schism between self-identity perception and the legal view of what it ... more This paper highlights the schism between self-identity perception and the legal view of what it means to live with disabilities. It showcases how disabled people who identify with contemporary views of disability, derived from the disability rights and independent living movements as well as the concept of the social model of disability, are forced to adjust themselves to and comply with the state's view of disability in order to gain the Social Security benefits they need in order to sustain themselves. Using original qualitative data that showcases “real life” experiences of benefit claimants, this paper sheds new light on the process of obtaining Social Security disability benefits in the U.S.
This paper was the second prize winner in the inaugural James Crane III Disability & the Law Writing Award, Thomas Jefferson Law School (2015).
In an era of stunning technological progress, parenthood as a concept drifts ever further from as... more In an era of stunning technological progress, parenthood as a concept drifts ever further from assumptions of biological gestational connection or genetic similarity. In Israel, a pro-natal society that values the idea of raising a family, the current legal landscape remains hostile to the use of third-party reproductive methods such as adoption and surrogacy by certain groups such as gay couples, single fathers and people with disabilities. Under the current law, prospective parents from these groups have no choice but to leave Israel in order to have their children: many go on “reproductive tours” to developing countries and rely on systems of surrogacy there, withstanding tremendous financial, physical and emotional stress. In April 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court gave its decision on the Ora Mor Yosef case. The case revolved around a disabled single womanwho could not bear a child due to her impairment and therefore used the services of an altruistic surrogate. After exhausting all other options, Ora was forced to bring a child into the world who was not genetically related to her; she arranged for the surrogate to be impregnated with a sperm and an egg, both of which had been donated to her. After the child was born, she was given immediately to foster care because, as Welfare Ministry officials argued, Ora was not genetically connected to her. During the trial, the Israeli court emphasized the importance of a genetic tie between the baby born of a surrogacy procedure and its parent. This paper discusses, through comparative analysis, this requirement that a genetic tie exist between babies and their prospective parents in surrogacy cases. It compares and implements an American model of “parenthood by intent” as established by California courts and manifested in the 1998 Buzzanca case on the case of Ora Mor Yosef.
This research highlights the crucial role of an intimate link between a disabled person's self-id... more This research highlights the crucial role of an intimate link between a disabled person's self-identity and the perceived fairness of legal procedures. In doing so, it brings to the foreground a wholly ignored aspect of procedural justice. Earlier researchers have failed to delve into the role identity politics plays in the relationship between the institutions and the beneficiaries of their services, and the way different members of a group understand and define themselves. This research explores the way people with disabilities in the United States, with different kinds of disability identities, experience and evaluate the procedure of claiming Social Security benefits. The findings suggest that disabled people who identified with the social model of disability (as opposed to the medical-individual models) hold a critical view of the procedure for retaining benefits. They felt they had no control over it, could not voice their opinions, were mistreated by representatives, and had to present an image that was not necessarily true of their disability. They also saw the procedure as discouraging them from participating fully in the labor market, and consequently integrating better in society, an idea that was not present among disabled people who identify with medical-individual models. Exposing this relationship between the way people perceive themselves and the way they experience and evaluate legal procedures can contribute to the creation of better policies, while improving communication between the state and members of the disability community, along with other marginalized groups.
The metaphor connecting blindness and fair-impartial legal treatment has been embodied in the Wes... more The metaphor connecting blindness and fair-impartial legal treatment has been embodied in the Western world for hundreds of years through the image of a blindfolded woman who represents justice. Nonetheless, not much has been written about the complexities and obstacles that stand in the way of placing actual blind judges on the bench. Nor has the 'Icon of Justice' been used to represent the social struggle for disability rights. This article is the first to turn a spotlight on the long history of blind people in England and the United States serving as members of the judiciary and to explore how this integration dovetails with the symbolic importance of blindness in the iconography of law. The article delves into the varied connotations of blindness throughout Western culture and legal history, specifically in its purported relationship to the objectivity of the judge. Finally, the article contrasts examples of the inclusion of blind people in Anglo-American legal systems with an Israeli case, revealing existing barriers that still prevent many blind people from entering the legal profession.
This paper highlights the schism between self-identity perception and the legal view of what it ... more This paper highlights the schism between self-identity perception and the legal view of what it means to live with disabilities. It showcases how disabled people who identify with contemporary views of disability, derived from the disability rights and independent living movements as well as the concept of the social model of disability, are forced to adjust themselves to and comply with the state's view of disability in order to gain the Social Security benefits they need in order to sustain themselves. Using original qualitative data that showcases “real life” experiences of benefit claimants, this paper sheds new light on the process of obtaining Social Security disability benefits in the U.S.
This paper was the second prize winner in the inaugural James Crane III Disability & the Law Writing Award, Thomas Jefferson Law School (2015).
In an era of stunning technological progress, parenthood as a concept drifts ever further from as... more In an era of stunning technological progress, parenthood as a concept drifts ever further from assumptions of biological gestational connection or genetic similarity. In Israel, a pro-natal society that values the idea of raising a family, the current legal landscape remains hostile to the use of third-party reproductive methods such as adoption and surrogacy by certain groups such as gay couples, single fathers and people with disabilities. Under the current law, prospective parents from these groups have no choice but to leave Israel in order to have their children: many go on “reproductive tours” to developing countries and rely on systems of surrogacy there, withstanding tremendous financial, physical and emotional stress. In April 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court gave its decision on the Ora Mor Yosef case. The case revolved around a disabled single womanwho could not bear a child due to her impairment and therefore used the services of an altruistic surrogate. After exhausting all other options, Ora was forced to bring a child into the world who was not genetically related to her; she arranged for the surrogate to be impregnated with a sperm and an egg, both of which had been donated to her. After the child was born, she was given immediately to foster care because, as Welfare Ministry officials argued, Ora was not genetically connected to her. During the trial, the Israeli court emphasized the importance of a genetic tie between the baby born of a surrogacy procedure and its parent. This paper discusses, through comparative analysis, this requirement that a genetic tie exist between babies and their prospective parents in surrogacy cases. It compares and implements an American model of “parenthood by intent” as established by California courts and manifested in the 1998 Buzzanca case on the case of Ora Mor Yosef.
This research highlights the crucial role of an intimate link between a disabled person's self-id... more This research highlights the crucial role of an intimate link between a disabled person's self-identity and the perceived fairness of legal procedures. In doing so, it brings to the foreground a wholly ignored aspect of procedural justice. Earlier researchers have failed to delve into the role identity politics plays in the relationship between the institutions and the beneficiaries of their services, and the way different members of a group understand and define themselves. This research explores the way people with disabilities in the United States, with different kinds of disability identities, experience and evaluate the procedure of claiming Social Security benefits. The findings suggest that disabled people who identified with the social model of disability (as opposed to the medical-individual models) hold a critical view of the procedure for retaining benefits. They felt they had no control over it, could not voice their opinions, were mistreated by representatives, and had to present an image that was not necessarily true of their disability. They also saw the procedure as discouraging them from participating fully in the labor market, and consequently integrating better in society, an idea that was not present among disabled people who identify with medical-individual models. Exposing this relationship between the way people perceive themselves and the way they experience and evaluate legal procedures can contribute to the creation of better policies, while improving communication between the state and members of the disability community, along with other marginalized groups.
Uploads
Papers by Doron Dorfman
This paper was the second prize winner in the inaugural James Crane III Disability & the Law Writing Award, Thomas Jefferson Law School (2015).
In Israel, a pro-natal society that values the idea of raising a family, the current legal landscape remains hostile to the use of third-party reproductive methods such as adoption and surrogacy by certain groups such as gay couples, single fathers and people with disabilities. Under the current law, prospective parents from these groups have no choice but to leave Israel in order to have their children: many go on “reproductive tours” to developing countries and rely on systems of surrogacy there, withstanding tremendous financial, physical and emotional stress.
In April 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court gave its decision on the Ora Mor Yosef case. The case revolved around a disabled single womanwho could not bear a child due to her impairment and therefore used the services of an altruistic surrogate. After exhausting all other options, Ora was forced to bring a child into the world who was not genetically related to her; she arranged for the surrogate to be impregnated with a sperm and an egg, both of which had been donated to her. After the child was born, she was given immediately to foster care because, as Welfare Ministry officials argued, Ora was not genetically connected to her. During the trial, the Israeli court emphasized the importance of a genetic tie between the baby born of a surrogacy procedure and its parent.
This paper discusses, through comparative analysis, this requirement that a genetic tie exist between babies and their prospective parents in surrogacy cases. It compares and implements an American model of “parenthood by intent” as established by California courts and manifested in the 1998 Buzzanca case on the case of Ora Mor Yosef.
This paper was the second prize winner in the inaugural James Crane III Disability & the Law Writing Award, Thomas Jefferson Law School (2015).
In Israel, a pro-natal society that values the idea of raising a family, the current legal landscape remains hostile to the use of third-party reproductive methods such as adoption and surrogacy by certain groups such as gay couples, single fathers and people with disabilities. Under the current law, prospective parents from these groups have no choice but to leave Israel in order to have their children: many go on “reproductive tours” to developing countries and rely on systems of surrogacy there, withstanding tremendous financial, physical and emotional stress.
In April 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court gave its decision on the Ora Mor Yosef case. The case revolved around a disabled single womanwho could not bear a child due to her impairment and therefore used the services of an altruistic surrogate. After exhausting all other options, Ora was forced to bring a child into the world who was not genetically related to her; she arranged for the surrogate to be impregnated with a sperm and an egg, both of which had been donated to her. After the child was born, she was given immediately to foster care because, as Welfare Ministry officials argued, Ora was not genetically connected to her. During the trial, the Israeli court emphasized the importance of a genetic tie between the baby born of a surrogacy procedure and its parent.
This paper discusses, through comparative analysis, this requirement that a genetic tie exist between babies and their prospective parents in surrogacy cases. It compares and implements an American model of “parenthood by intent” as established by California courts and manifested in the 1998 Buzzanca case on the case of Ora Mor Yosef.