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]