01.08.2013 Views

View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository

View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository

View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

5.5.8 ITEM' 19 RESPONDENTS WHO MANAGEDTO WORK AFTER<br />

AMPUTATION TO ADD TO THE DISABILITY GRANT<br />

AND THOSE WHO DID NOT WORK AFTER<br />

AMPUTATION<br />

FlGURES5 BESPONDENTSWBOWORKED ORNOIWORKED AFfERAMPUrATION<br />

BRespondenls<br />

who did notWDIlt<br />

after amputation<br />

E1Respondenls<br />

who managedto<br />

WOIkafler<br />

amputation<br />

Figure 5.5 indicates that (15) 60% respondents did not work after amputation as<br />

compared to (10) 40% who managed to work after amputation, This does not mean that<br />

(10) 40% amputees returned to their old work after amputation, but that some did light<br />

duties on their own like repairing shoes, handwork like bead work to get an income to<br />

addto the disability grant, except for those who were self-employed and who returnedto<br />

their old employment. This indicates that thereis a great need <strong>of</strong>proper rehabilitation so<br />

thatpeoplearesupportedand prepared to go back to their old work.<br />

This also reveals that there is a need for family and community involvement to start mini<br />

projects in the community where all physically challenged people can get involved so as<br />

to add to their disability grants. However, financial support becomes a problem to start<br />

these projects. NdIovn (2000) supports this statement that there is a great needto make<br />

58

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!