SaraCrewe ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

When I read this whole post I thought that it was some sort of joke.  But
then I remembered my province's present Conservative government I had to
realize that ignorance just isn't confined to political parties.
Sometimes reactions like this one have a root in a problem that is overly
frustrating.  In either case, I want to respond.

: Excuse me, but "temporarily able bodied" is about the stupidest thing I
: have ever heard. That makes it sound as if to be upright, ambulatory, and
: walking on two feet were some kind of aberration!

Actually, it is not just any stupid label.  It highlights the fact that
there are people out there who assume that everyone for every purpose has
no limitations.  Whether it be a physical handicap, the effects of aging
or accidents, or the need to have accomodation for such things as baby
carriages, these are often looked over by people who are supposed to be
intelligent enough to realize that the human population is not as
homogeneous as they would like to think.  The only reason some people are
unable to participate to the fullest extent is the fact that they are
stuck in an environment that was created on these misinformed assumptions.

: It's almost as strange and bizarre as spending thousands and thousands of
: dollars on devices that are not just meant to help the handicapped, but to
: make them believe they really aren't!!! That is totally weird! What is the
: big deal with helping someone who needs help? Even those of us on two legs
: need help now and then....what is the problem with having someone give a
: hand to person in a wheelchair or who is on crutches?

First of all, look at the issue of human dignity.  What would you want if
you were in their situation (be realistic here, you might not have the
experience of constantly having had to ask for help for even the most
basic activities let alone for something that is complicated)?  The chance
to do things yourself is a very important motivator for anyone.  What is wrong
with helping people do the same thing as those around them (especially if
it only really takes is a few mechanical devices)?  There is dignity in
doing things for yourself.  Let the people have it where they can.

Look past your cost assessment mentality to realize that there are
certain things that can be done to assist in certain situations and which
do not cost all that much.  Try ramps for example.  Take away ramps from
certain buildings and then what?  Are you going to be the one to help
bring someone in a wheel chair up those few steps.  I would very much
like to see you even try (even assuming the person in the chair even
trusts you to try).  There are some chairs that do not lend themselves
to being lifted if only for the weight. I've worked in health care and in
the culture industries and I see no other way other than turning these
 people back from the doors if there are no ramps.   Put those ramps in
and then see just how many other people you are helping.  The absence of
ramps and the like create what is called a disabling environment.  Such
an environment not only affects those who are labelled disabled but also
anyone else who is someone unable to access a place (seniors, mothers
with strollers, people with injuries).  The use of more
expensive items comes as a luxury to some and for some institutions they
just are not feasible at the moment.  In time perhaps things will
change.  You are right, human intervention is always an alternative but
there are certain situations where such direct intervention is not
possible (like lifting heavy wheelchairs up even two steps, again I
would just love to see you try it successfully).

: Some very expensive and misplaced pride is going on here. I'm sorry if
: acknowledging REALITY is a problem for you; I have no problem at all with
: letting anyone think whatever they want (some ambulatory people think they
: are gods, and some wheelchair bound people think they can fly!), but who
: is going to pay for the pretense?

It is not pride here.  Do you at all acknowledge human rights, that all
people have the right to access all things equally (especially if they
have public funding but the principle should apply to private situations
as well))?  Sure there might be cost and everyone must acknowledge that
fact.  But this is where something called "negotiation" comes in.  Things
cannot always be had right here and now.  Both sides of the argument have
to realize this.   Work with your visitor population and hopefully they
will cut you the slack you need to try to get the interventions in
place.  Until then, try working with alternatives.

Your example of the electric door is a good one.

Have someone hold it open if you can.  That is as good an intervention as
any given the circumstances.  But look at the concerns on the other
side.  How will you know that someone needs to have the door open?  Do
they just sit there until you show up or do they have some means of
getting your attention if you are not directly visible (obviously this
situation is completely site specific).  Will the visitor be stuck
outside until they are assisted (concerns about weather come in here)?
Will the visitor be made to bad about asking for help (if someone came to
the door resentful at having to be interrupted for such a service then I
would worry, the resentment would taint the assistance offered and can
anyone right now (or ever) risk offending people over such a small issue
when the PR damage can be so great?).  Negotiate, let people know you are
trying while acknowledging the problems you are having with such things as
funding.  But it in no way negates your institutions duty to put
interventions in place.  If they can remove the effects of disability
then all the better.

: the very good and human task of allowing each one of us to do a good turn
: for another - because we will all (hopefully) be the recipient of such a
: good deed ourselves at some point.

There is nothing wrong believing this except that we might be talking
about systems and not individuals (individuals might make up a system but
the system can be self-perpetuating in absence of some or all the
individuals).  Individuals might reciprocate in time, even if it is not
directly back to the giver.  Systems do not and thus need work beyond this.

:
: Sorry for being so un-PC, but who gives a flying f*** for what the US
: Forestry Service says? What moron came up with  "TEMPORARILY ABLE
: BODIED"?? Only a genuine nitwit could possibly be paid a salary to devise
: such ridiculous acronyms....TAB, indeed!!

Actually, your US Forestry Service did not come up with the term.  It was
probably made up by some very intelligent people who, very likely, are
disabled themselves and recognized that, while our able-bodied status is
not the aberation, we should not take it for granted.  Able-bodiedness
should not be seen as a permanent norm.  Western health care would
like to cast it as such but it does not take into account various factors
that change in time and situation and may not always have to deal with
one's physicality.

As for you personally Sara, what has happened that you should be so angry
about this.  I normally have not run across such anger unless it has been
provoked and quite likely you have been (and continue to be through the
net by your posting....I could even be seen as provoking the issue
farther).  Perhaps if you brought this situation to light there might be
people here on the list who might have some suggestions on how to deal
with it.  I understand the dilemma that cultural institutions are facing
right now (the trend here in Ontario is not unique).  A solution might be
possible is you just put the problem out in public and seek suggestions.
I may not be able to understand the situation you have found yourself in
but there might be others who can help.

Gary van Lingen
Wilfrid Laurier University
[log in to unmask]