Disability Rights | Community Life | Equal Opportunity | Human Dignity
Today’s focus: A service may be open to the public, but that does not necessarily mean everyone can use it.
Quote of the Day
“To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life”
— Article 9(1), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations — Article 9: Accessibility.
The Door Is Open. But Can Everyone Get In?
Imagine a woman arriving at a public office to collect an important document.
She has travelled across town, paid for transportation and waited several weeks for this appointment.
She reaches the building and finds a flight of stairs leading to the entrance.
There is no ramp.
There is no lift.
She uses a wheelchair.
Other visitors walk past her and enter the building. She remains outside, wondering how she will reach the office.
Eventually, someone offers to carry her up the stairs.
The person means well.
But she is uncomfortable with the arrangement. She worries about falling. She also wonders why something as ordinary as entering a public building requires her to depend on strangers.
She has come to collect a document, just like everyone else.
Why should getting through the door be the most difficult part of her visit?
This is an imagined situation, but it raises an important question about how we organize our communities.
When we say a place is open to everyone, have we considered what that actually means?
We often think of accessibility as something that concerns only a small group of people.
Perhaps we picture a wheelchair ramp outside a hospital.
Or a reserved parking space near a shopping centre.
These things matter.
But accessibility goes much further.
Consider someone with a visual impairment trying to navigate a government website.
The information may be available online, but if the website cannot be used with appropriate assistive technology, that person may struggle to access it.
Consider a person who is deaf attending an important public meeting.
They may be physically present in the room but unable to follow the discussion without suitable communication support.
Or consider an older person who finds it difficult to stand for long periods.
A public service office may have enough staff and computers, yet provide nowhere for visitors to sit while waiting.
These are different situations, but they share something important.
The difficulty is not always the person’s disability or physical condition.
Sometimes, the difficulty comes from how the environment or service has been designed.
And design is something we can change.
In Cameroon, as in many countries, people depend on public buildings, hospitals, schools, markets, transport services and administrative offices.
For someone with a disability, an inaccessible service can mean repeated journeys, additional expenses and lost opportunities.
A student may struggle to reach a classroom.
A job applicant may discover that the interview venue cannot accommodate their mobility needs.
A patient may require assistance to enter a health facility.
These barriers can affect a person’s independence and dignity.
Yet discussions about accessibility sometimes focus mainly on charity.
We praise someone for helping a wheelchair user up a staircase.
We admire a stranger who reads a document aloud to a person with a visual impairment.
Such assistance can be generous and necessary.
But we should also ask why the person needed that help in the first place.
Could the building have been designed with an accessible entrance?
Could the information have been provided in a usable format?
Could the service have been organized differently?
There is nothing wrong with helping another person.
The problem arises when help becomes the only way someone can participate in ordinary public life.
Imagine having to ask strangers for assistance every time you visit a bank, attend an appointment or enter a classroom.
Imagine having to explain your personal circumstances repeatedly just to receive a service available to everyone else.
That can become exhausting.
And it should not be treated as normal.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognizes accessibility as an essential part of equal participation in society.
Its provisions address not only buildings and roads but also transportation, communication systems and public services.
This matters because exclusion does not always involve someone deliberately refusing another person entry.
Sometimes, exclusion happens because nobody considered that person’s needs when planning the service.
A staircase is constructed without an accessible alternative.
A notice is printed in a format some people cannot read.
An online application is developed without testing whether people using assistive technology can complete it.
Nobody may have intended to exclude anyone.
But the result can still be exclusion.
The solution begins with a change in thinking.
Instead of asking how people with disabilities can adapt to buildings and services designed without them in mind, we should ask how those buildings and services can accommodate a wider range of people from the beginning.
That means involving people with disabilities in decisions that affect them.
It means listening when someone identifies a barrier.
And it means recognizing that accessibility is not an optional favour.
It is part of making public life fairer.
Of course, improvements require planning, resources and technical knowledge.
Older buildings may present particular challenges.
Some adjustments cannot be completed overnight.
But difficulty should not become an excuse for doing nothing.
Institutions can begin by identifying barriers, consulting users and establishing practical plans for improvement.
Even changes that appear modest can make a difference when they respond to real needs.
A clearly marked accessible entrance.
A properly designed waiting area.
Information available in alternative formats.
Staff trained to communicate respectfully with people who have different needs.
These measures help create services that people can use with greater independence.
And many improvements benefit others too.
An accessible entrance may help a parent pushing a stroller.
Clear signs may assist a visitor unfamiliar with the building.
Simple, understandable information may help people with different literacy levels.
Accessibility is not about creating a separate world for people with disabilities.
It is about making the world we share more usable.
A building is not truly welcoming simply because its doors are unlocked. It must also be possible for people to enter, move around and receive the services they came for.
Perhaps the next time we visit a public building, we should look around.
Not only at what has been provided.
But at who might still be unable to use it.
Did You Know?
Accessibility and reasonable accommodation are related, but they are not exactly the same thing.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities distinguishes between designing services for broad accessibility and making adjustments for a person’s particular needs.
Article 2 defines universal design as designing products, environments, programmes and services so they can be used by as many people as possible without requiring special adaptation.
For example, a public building designed with an accessible entrance from the beginning may serve wheelchair users, older visitors and parents pushing strollers.
Reasonable accommodation is different.
It involves necessary and appropriate adjustments for an individual in a particular situation, provided they do not impose a disproportionate or undue burden.
An employee might need an adjustment to their workstation. A student might need an accessible examination format.
The Convention also recognizes that denying reasonable accommodation can constitute disability discrimination.
Article 9 addresses accessibility more broadly, including buildings, roads, transportation, information, communications and services available to the public.
It calls on States Parties to identify and remove accessibility barriers and develop appropriate standards.
These provisions do not mean that every building or service can be transformed instantly. Implementation involves legal responsibilities, planning and practical considerations.
But the underlying principle is important.
Accessibility should be considered when services are designed, not only after someone encounters a barrier.
And when a person has a specific need, appropriate individual adjustments may still be necessary.
A fair service is one that considers both the people who will use it and the barriers that may prevent them from doing so.
Sources: United Nations — Article 2: Definitions and United Nations — Article 9: Accessibility.
For Discussion
Can we describe a public service as available to everyone when some people cannot physically enter the building or use the information provided?
Think about government offices, schools, hospitals, markets and public transportation in your community.
What barriers have you noticed that might prevent people with disabilities from using these services independently?
In Cameroon, should accessibility assessments become a routine part of planning and maintaining public buildings?
How can local councils and service providers involve people with disabilities when deciding what improvements are needed?
And should institutions be expected to explain how they will address barriers that people have repeatedly reported?
Perhaps there is one question worth asking:
When we build something for the public, who do we picture as the person who will use it — and who might we be forgetting?
Leave a Reply