Disability Rights Policy Report: Contemporary Legal Thoughts and Agenda Annotated Saccade Dogg

Protecting Perception and Safety: A Disability Rights Policy Report

Executive Summary

This report examines emerging issues at the intersection of disability rights, healthcare, technology, and research. It analyzes perception—including sensory experiences and data—as a fundamental individual resource that demands legal and ethical protection in mental health, disability services, and scientific research. Institutional duty of care, preventable physical harms, and financial abuses are examined, along with challenges in obtaining valid informed consent. Privacy and data-security concerns for perceptual information are highlighted, and accessibility failures in conferences, associations, and digital platforms are documented. Two conceptual frameworks—the Facepile model and the iHouse Rodeo metaphor—illustrate inclusive design and systemic risk. Key legal precedents under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are surveyed, including transplant discrimination cases. Policy recommendations focus on strengthening protections of perceptual autonomy, safe institutional practices, combating financial exploitation, ensuring valid consent processes, securing sensory data, and enforcing accessibility.

Introduction

Disability rights frameworks have traditionally focused on access to physical spaces, communication, and services. In an era of rapid technological and healthcare innovation, new dimensions of inclusion and autonomy arise around perception and experience. Sensory and cognitive experiences are central to both service delivery and data collection. Virtual reality, eye-tracking systems, and therapeutic interventions can adapt environments but also raise questions about consent, privacy, and exploitation. This report synthesizes these themes for regulators, advocates, and ethics boards.

Perception as a Protected Resource

Perception—what individuals see, hear, and feel—is personal and integral to autonomy. Yet it has lacked explicit legal protection. Technological advances, such as eye-tracking and VR, increase risks of privacy violations and manipulation. State laws like California SB1223 and Montana SB163 classify neural data as sensitive information, but federal protections remain limited. Policy recommendations include recognizing sensory integrity as a protected domain and regulating unconsented data collection and manipulation.

Advanced sensory technologies raise novel considerations for data privacy and accessibility.

Institutional Liability for Preventable Physical Harm

Institutions serving vulnerable populations have a duty to prevent physical harm. Cases such as Partridge v. County of Boulder illustrate failures to protect individuals from self-harm. Duty of care includes supervision, trauma-informed practices, and preventive measures. Policy should require risk assessments, mandatory reporting, and staff training to prevent harm.

Financial Exploitation and Price Gouging

Vulnerable individuals are susceptible to economic abuse and price-gouging, particularly in specialized or novel treatments like behavioral therapy or psychedelic-assisted therapy. Policy must strengthen guardianship oversight, audit billing practices, cap fees in emergencies, and ensure cost transparency. Professional codes must prohibit exploitation of altered states or disabilities for profit.

Informed Consent for Cognitively Vulnerable Populations

Obtaining valid consent is challenging for individuals with cognitive impairments or in crises. Barriers include complex information, psychiatric crises, or acute trauma. Strategies for inclusive consent include plain language, visual aids, multimedia tools, supported decision-making, and continuous consent monitoring. Legal safeguards under federal regulations and ADA principles emphasize respect for autonomy and individualized assessment.

Inclusive consent strategies support comprehension for participants with intellectual disabilities.

Privacy and Data Protections for Perceptual Information

Modern devices generate eye-tracking, motion, and neural data. This information can reveal sensitive health or behavioral patterns. Current laws are insufficient; state neuroprivacy laws provide partial protection. Recommendations include informed consent for data collection, data minimization, encryption, deletion rights, and transparent data practices. Organizations must secure perceptual information akin to medical data.

Wearable sensors and neurotechnology can collect sensitive perceptual data.

Accessibility Failures in Associations, Conferences, and Digital Platforms

Public accommodations and digital platforms often fail to provide reasonable accessibility. Cases like Ruffa v. SHRM and NAD v. Netflix illustrate the consequences of inadequate captioning, interpreters, and accessible web interfaces. Recommendations include enforcing ADA and Section 504 requirements for digital platforms, hybrid events, and professional associations, with clear compliance and reporting obligations.

Inclusive Perception: Facepile Framework

The Facepile Framework emphasizes multi-beholder inclusion in design and aesthetics. Diverse perspectives ensure that environments, media, and therapy spaces are accessible and engaging for all users. Policy should encourage participatory design, advisory panels of disabled stakeholders, and co-development of accessible technologies.

The iHouse Rodeo Metaphor: Risk Staging and Structural Exclusion

The iHouse Rodeo metaphor highlights hidden risks and structural exclusion in institutional environments. Facilities may be physically or cognitively inaccessible, creating hazards. Policy implications include mandatory hazard analyses, multi-modal alerts, and universal design principles to prevent inadvertent exclusion or harm.

Legal and Ethical Precedents

Key laws include ADA Titles II and III, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Case studies include transplant discrimination against disabled individuals and enforcement actions related to accessibility and privacy. Ethical frameworks from the Belmont Report and UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities support inclusion, informed consent, and equitable treatment.

Policy Recommendations

• Treat perception as protected, including sensory experiences and perceptual data.
• Enforce institutional duty of care and require risk assessments for vulnerable populations.
• Prevent financial exploitation and ensure transparency in treatment costs.
• Support inclusive informed consent for cognitively vulnerable or crisis populations.
• Strengthen data protections for perceptual information with encryption, deletion rights, and oversight.
• Ensure accessibility of all digital and in-person platforms and events under ADA/Section 504.
• Promote participatory and multi-perspective design via Facepile Framework.
• Assess structural risks in facilities to avoid iHouse Rodeo hazards and exclusion.

References

1. [9] XR Access. Eye-tracking and VR accessibility report, 2025.
2. [11] State neuroprivacy statutes review, 2025.
3. [16] SB1223, California, and SB163, Montana, 2025 neurotechnology laws.
4. [30] Vanderbilt Kennedy Center. Toolkit for inclusive consent, 2024.
5. [34] HHS-OIG. ABA therapy fraud reports, 2023.
6. [36] Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard. Psychedelic treatment economics, 2023.
7. [51] Special Needs Alliance. Financial abuse of disabled adults, 2023.
8. [54] Ruffa v. SHRM, 2022.
9. [60] NAD v. Netflix, 2012.
10. [70] Corneal transplant discrimination case illustration.
11. [75] National Council on Disability, organ transplant discrimination report, 2019.
12. [79] Figure placeholder: braille display image.
13. [80] Figure placeholder: conference accessibility illustration.
14. [83] Figure placeholder: motion tracking wearable image.