Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email
 |
Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid | |
Excerpt
However, a recent survey of applications to physical medicine and rehabilitation residency programs conducted by Thomas Pobre, MD, Jay Weiss MD, Mitchell A. Lowenthal, Esq., and myself concluded that 8.8% (6 of 68 applications) specifically asked questions regarding an applicant's disabilities that were not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 30 of the applications (44.1%) requested information about an applicant's age or date of birth, 11 applications (16.2%) requested information regarding the applicant's gender, 15 (22.1%) included questions regarding the applicant's marital status, and 24(35.3%) requested information regarding the number of applicant's children or dependents. Even the Universal Application used by 17 programs (25%) asked about the applicant's number of dependents. Race or ethnic origin, while an optional question on many of the applications, was not a required question in any of the 68 applications reviewed.
The Civil Rights Act of 19641 prohibited employment discrimination based on race, religion, color, and national origin. Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 extended such protection to federal workers with disabilities. In particular, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 19732 prohibits discrimination based on disability by the federal government, federal contractors, and recipients of federal financial assistance. On July 26, 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law by then President Bush. The new law, a combination and extension of the two previous acts, provided comprehensive civil rights legislation for people with disabilities. Thus, Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,3-8 which address employment, extended the rights afforded to disabled persons by extending coverage to all employers with 15 or more employees and to state and local government services.
A recent article by Wu et al.9 evaluated the prevalence of disabilities among American medical students. Of 33,138 students who graduated from the 67 medical schools represented, 64 students (0.19%) were noted to have a disability. A study by Moore-West and Heath10 reported a total enrollment of 0.23% physically disabled students in medical school between 1976 and 1980. Although the total percentage of disabled medical students appears small, it is assumed that most of these students will continue on to some form of graduate medical education. These students deserve the same protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act that employees in other fields are afforded.
Twenty-five percent of all programs (17) either sent or accepted the Universal Application. Although the Universal Application avoids many of the problem questions noted above, even it included one question that did not meet the criteria of compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964: “Number of dependents.”
Physical medicine and rehabilitation differs from other medical specialties in its unique role of managing individuals with disabilities. The physiatrist is concerned with the establishment of a physiologic, psychological, and social equilibrium for persons with disabilities. Because of the major role physiatrists have in the care of patients with disabilities, it is imperative that all physiatrists understand and comply with the laws designed to protect the disabled. Being employers themselves, the physiatrist and the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Programs are not exempt from complying with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This study identified 6 of 68 programs (8.
