ABSTRACT The rising number of individuals affected by illnesses linked to everyday chemicals has become an urgent public health concern. The article aims to scrutinize the Institute of Public Health (FHI)’s language use and the potential consequences of its linguistic choices when discussing environmental disability (ED). The central research questions are: What characterizes the discourse through which FHI presents ED? And how might this influence social policy regarding ED as a disability? Utilizing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a methodological framework, the study analyses FHI’s discourse and its impact on public understanding and social policy related to ED. The findings reveal that FHI’s discourse potentially obscures the lived experiences of individuals with ED, hindering their inclusion in social work practices and policies. This lack of representation could leave those affected without the necessary support. The implications of these findings are significant for social workers and policymakers, underscoring the need for a more inclusive and representative discourse on ED.
Read full abstract