Book Chapter
Kelly Moes
[under review]
[under review]
Cite
Cite
APA
Click to copy
Moes, K. The False Promise of Telehealth Accessibility for Complex Chronic Illness Communities. [under review].
Chicago/Turabian
Click to copy
Moes, Kelly. “The False Promise of Telehealth Accessibility for Complex Chronic Illness Communities.” [Under Review], n.d.
MLA
Click to copy
Moes, Kelly. “The False Promise of Telehealth Accessibility for Complex Chronic Illness Communities.” [Under Review].
BibTeX Click to copy
@unpublished{moes-a,
title = {The False Promise of Telehealth Accessibility for Complex Chronic Illness Communities},
journal = {[under review]},
author = {Moes, Kelly}
}
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated telehealth adoption as a primary mode of healthcare delivery, with remote consultations often framed as enhanging accessibility for people with disbailities. Drawing on critical disability studies perspectives and the social-relational model of disability, this provocation contends that telehealth reinforces normative assumptions about illness presentation and visibility, privileging the needs of the 'typical' patient seeking quick, straightforward care.
I contend that, despite benefits for some disabled populations, telehealth creates new barriers for others with complex chronic illnesses. For individuals with fluctuating symptoms, cognitive limitations, or contested conditions, telehealth can impede effective healthcare by increasing invisible labor, disregarding crip time, removing embodied knowledge from the diagnostic process, and diminishing opportunities for relational care. The unexamined assumption of telehealth as universally accessible obscures how digital healthcare systems can amplify existing inequities when implemented without attention to diverse embodied experiences.
As we navigate the post-pandemic future of healthcare, reimagining digital health equity requires grappling with the messy realities and diversity of lived experiences of chronic illness and disability, challenging normative assumptions, and centring patient agency and choice. Rather than rejecting telehealth entirely, this provocation calls for reimagining digital healthcare through a crip-centered approach that prioritises disabled people's right to choose the modality that best meets their individual needs and preserves opportunities for embodied connection. Only by challenging telehealth's false promise of universal accessibility can we create a more equitable and just healthcare landscape that respects the diversity of disabled experiences.
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated telehealth adoption as a primary mode of healthcare delivery, with remote consultations often framed as enhanging accessibility for people with disbailities. Drawing on critical disability studies perspectives and the social-relational model of disability, this provocation contends that telehealth reinforces normative assumptions about illness presentation and visibility, privileging the needs of the 'typical' patient seeking quick, straightforward care.
I contend that, despite benefits for some disabled populations, telehealth creates new barriers for others with complex chronic illnesses. For individuals with fluctuating symptoms, cognitive limitations, or contested conditions, telehealth can impede effective healthcare by increasing invisible labor, disregarding crip time, removing embodied knowledge from the diagnostic process, and diminishing opportunities for relational care. The unexamined assumption of telehealth as universally accessible obscures how digital healthcare systems can amplify existing inequities when implemented without attention to diverse embodied experiences.
As we navigate the post-pandemic future of healthcare, reimagining digital health equity requires grappling with the messy realities and diversity of lived experiences of chronic illness and disability, challenging normative assumptions, and centring patient agency and choice. Rather than rejecting telehealth entirely, this provocation calls for reimagining digital healthcare through a crip-centered approach that prioritises disabled people's right to choose the modality that best meets their individual needs and preserves opportunities for embodied connection. Only by challenging telehealth's false promise of universal accessibility can we create a more equitable and just healthcare landscape that respects the diversity of disabled experiences.