I have been medically stable for three decades. Common sense dictates I see a urologist on a yearly basis to insure no problems arise--kidney disease and bladder cancer is common among paraplegics and not always symptomatic. I have been very lucky--luck based on the fact with family support I can afford to see the urologist regularly. I have had precious few urinary tract infections, UTIs, the bane of most paraplegics, and have not had a single serious issue with my kidneys or bladder. All this changed last summer and has reached a peak in the last month with another and serious UTI. This is why my posts have been less frequent--I am sick often. UTIs are debilitating and at this point costly. How costly is a UTI? A urine analysis and culture is $150. Anti-biotics for a week range from $50 to $160 depending upon what the bacteria is sensitive to. An office visit is $165. In short, I spend between $300 and $400 every time I get a UTI. Not a dime is covered by insurance. This makes no sense to me given the fact if I had to be hospitalized for the same problem I would be completely covered. But my expenses do not end with anti-biotics and office visits. Renal ultra sounds are required as are many other tests--again none of this is covered by insurance. To reiterate: I truly am lucky--I have the family support and experience to access excellent health care. I have been followed by the same urologist who is not only a kind and compassionate man but known within his field as "the rock star of urologists". Sure I am worried about myself--it seems highly likely surgery is in my near future. My prognosis is excellent and I have no doubt that I will be myself in a matter of months. But what keeps me up at night are those that do not have the family support I enjoy. I also worry about those with poor access to appropriate health care. Being paralyzed is different and there are certain risks associated with paralysis such as kidney disease already mentioned. Does you average paralyzed person have access to a physician with the prerequisite knowledge? For a few people like me, the answer is yes. However, I would venture to guess most paralyzed people needlessly suffer from problems that need not arise.
Given my recent problems, I have been thinking a lot about the health care reform bill passed by the House and signed by President Obama. Selfishly, I hope in 2014 I will have access to good health insurance. This hope however is a microscopic in comparison to the implications of health care reform for those denied access to basic health care. And who is denied access to adequate health care? The most needy among us: the underemployed, unemployed, and disabled. That denial is both subtle and grievous. For those of us with pre-existing conditions it means health care premiums that are beyond our means. For other people that need an electric wheelchair, often costing upward of $25,000, they are forced to settle for an inferior model that compromises their life and independence. Have we heard such stories in the media? In a word, no. In place of debate we have vicious political rhetoric--think of the declarations espoused by the Tea Party about death panels and the government takeover of health care. Lost in the hysteria is that real people are suffering and emergency rooms nation wide are too often used for basic health care. Change is desperately needed. I have no idea what the health care reform bill will do but I do know the existing system is hopelessly broken. Well, broken to about half the population without access to health insurance and people like me--costly people insurance companies hate.
What we need to do is far more complex than change the law as it relates to health care. Thus the health care reform bill is just the first baby step toward changing our health care system. What is desperately needed is to change the cultural perception of medicine, insurance, and health care. Health care must be thought of as a right we all share. This right comes with responsibilities such as caring for one's self to the best of your ability. The medical establishment must put the patient ahead of profit thereby instilling humanism in medicine that has been lost. Insurance companies must learn to make a profit keeping people well instead of profiting from illness alone. For instance, it make no sense that blood pressure medication is so expensive people cannot afford it and hence run the risk of stroke, extended hospitalization and rehabilitation. Let me be even more self directed. I have been hospitalized once in the last 30 years for a complication directly related to my paralysis. This was possible because I took care of myself--and all those expenses came directly out of my own pocket. Yet here I sit without adequate health insurance because I am deemed high risk. This makes no sense and highlights why we need to radically change the way we think about health care and by extension disability. There is historical precedent for such change. The ADA was passed almost 20 years ago. Prior to the ADA being enacted into law it was perfectly legal to deny a person with a disability access to a public education. Unemployment was rampant and many people with a disability, myself included, were called names, mocked, and jeered at. I remember this sort of vilification vividly and it is a thing of the past for the most part. In part people with a disability were isolated and stigmatized because they were feared. In much the same way many Americans fear what the health care bill will do. I do not share these fears as it caters to the lowest element of humanity. The medical industrial complex does not want change and through its lobbyist have created a hysteria among the population. If you doubt this just watch CNN for an afternoon. Fear mongering leads people to look for someone to blame and who is the easiest target? Why expensive people such as those that have a disability and represent a drain on the system. This is why the health care reform bill is but one tiny step in the right direction. Hopefully in time it will change the way we perceive health care and those that access the health care system. I for one look forward to the day when I can go to a hospital and not fear my life will be deemed less valuable or my care too costly. Sadly, I sincerely doubt I will live to see this day.
Disability Rights and Opposition to Legalizing Assisted Suicide
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Yesterday I was delighted to read Stephen Drake's latest blog entry at Not dead Yet entitled "Ann Neumann and Vancouver Sun: Dissing Disability Activists Opposition to Euthanasia". I am a self described bad cripple but I am not one prone to polemics. I leave this to others as my aim is to change people's preconceived notions about disability. My goal is not easy and I shy away from engaging people like Neumann whose writing I find infuriating. Thus I was delighted to read Drake's post and effective skewering of her take on disability rights and assisted suicide. In my opinion Neumann states many interesting things but always seem to take a wrong turn in her analyses. She acknowledges the rights of disabled people and supports their efforts to gain equality. Yet when it comes to opposition to assisted suicide, as an advocate, she takes disability rights activists to task. Two passage below from her blog the Other Spoon should suffice as examples.
Example 1: In "A Look at Disability Rights in North America" Neumann comments on a "hit and miss" article in the Vancouver Sun:
In this increasingly bitter debate, disabled activists claim legalizing assisted suicide would be an ethical "slippery slope" that would lead to all disabled people, no matter the degree of their impairment, being devalued as human beings.
In turn, advocates for assisted suicide maintain the arguments of disabled-rights activists are a misplaced over-reaction to their proposals.
Example 2: In "Jill Stanek and Not Dead Yet Shake Their Fingers at Me, I Respond" Neumann writes:
Giving a mentally-sound, terminal patient with less than six the right to a lethal prescription that they may or may not choose to take when death approaches has nothing to do with the disabled community. Again, I sympathize with the fear and vulnerability the disabled community feels toward the medical industry, the state, and society. But conflating two separate issues is just bad advocacy. With a little (understandable) paranoia thrown in
As for the first example, I have news for Neumann: if I have learned anything in the last thirty years of using a wheelchair it is that all people with a disability are not valued to some degree. There is no slippery slope involved. Just ask any paralyzed person or anyone with a disability. Better yet go to a school board meeting and listen to one and all cluck about the need for equal access and then vote down the need for that expensive elevator or lift on the school bus. There is no over reaction here . Indeed, if disability activists are guilty of anything I would argue we are too passive. We need to be more vigorous in asserting our inalienable rights as citizens.
As for the second example, I doubt Neumann goes through the same mental gymnastics or experience the fear people with a disability do when they go to the doctors office or hospital. Perhaps Neumann can appreciate the difference between the terminally ill and disabled but I assure you most people, doctors included, do not. How else do I explain comments made to me such as "I would be rather be dead than use a wheelchair" or "Are you sure you wish to receive medical treatment" or "How longe have you suffered paralysis?" A clear message is being sent and it is not positive. Indeed, it is deadly and with the right spin can be lethal in some circumstances. My existence is open to question, my life less valuable. This is not paranoia but rather a social fact. Somehow I doubt anyone has openly questioned the value of Nuemann's existence or asked her if she really wished to receive medical treatment. Frankly I do not want Nuemann's sympathy or anyone else's for that matter. What I want is support; support for my civil rights. That support starts at the beginning, middle and end of life. I have not had that support from anyone aside from my family, friends and doctor or two. What an indictment on society. How can something as unimportant as the ability to walk have such profound social consequences. Worse yet when I assert my rights I get called "paranoid" by people like Nuemann with a political goal--the legalization of assisted suicide. This is depressing to me and I sincerely doubt I can sway the views of people such as Nuemann. Hence this why I write more about disability rights than the politics of assisted suicide.
Example 1: In "A Look at Disability Rights in North America" Neumann comments on a "hit and miss" article in the Vancouver Sun:
In this increasingly bitter debate, disabled activists claim legalizing assisted suicide would be an ethical "slippery slope" that would lead to all disabled people, no matter the degree of their impairment, being devalued as human beings.
In turn, advocates for assisted suicide maintain the arguments of disabled-rights activists are a misplaced over-reaction to their proposals.
Example 2: In "Jill Stanek and Not Dead Yet Shake Their Fingers at Me, I Respond" Neumann writes:
Giving a mentally-sound, terminal patient with less than six the right to a lethal prescription that they may or may not choose to take when death approaches has nothing to do with the disabled community. Again, I sympathize with the fear and vulnerability the disabled community feels toward the medical industry, the state, and society. But conflating two separate issues is just bad advocacy. With a little (understandable) paranoia thrown in
As for the first example, I have news for Neumann: if I have learned anything in the last thirty years of using a wheelchair it is that all people with a disability are not valued to some degree. There is no slippery slope involved. Just ask any paralyzed person or anyone with a disability. Better yet go to a school board meeting and listen to one and all cluck about the need for equal access and then vote down the need for that expensive elevator or lift on the school bus. There is no over reaction here . Indeed, if disability activists are guilty of anything I would argue we are too passive. We need to be more vigorous in asserting our inalienable rights as citizens.
As for the second example, I doubt Neumann goes through the same mental gymnastics or experience the fear people with a disability do when they go to the doctors office or hospital. Perhaps Neumann can appreciate the difference between the terminally ill and disabled but I assure you most people, doctors included, do not. How else do I explain comments made to me such as "I would be rather be dead than use a wheelchair" or "Are you sure you wish to receive medical treatment" or "How longe have you suffered paralysis?" A clear message is being sent and it is not positive. Indeed, it is deadly and with the right spin can be lethal in some circumstances. My existence is open to question, my life less valuable. This is not paranoia but rather a social fact. Somehow I doubt anyone has openly questioned the value of Nuemann's existence or asked her if she really wished to receive medical treatment. Frankly I do not want Nuemann's sympathy or anyone else's for that matter. What I want is support; support for my civil rights. That support starts at the beginning, middle and end of life. I have not had that support from anyone aside from my family, friends and doctor or two. What an indictment on society. How can something as unimportant as the ability to walk have such profound social consequences. Worse yet when I assert my rights I get called "paranoid" by people like Nuemann with a political goal--the legalization of assisted suicide. This is depressing to me and I sincerely doubt I can sway the views of people such as Nuemann. Hence this why I write more about disability rights than the politics of assisted suicide.
Disability Culture and the Lack of Social Progress
Monday, March 15, 2010
Last month I read an interesting post at the NextStep blog written by Ethan Ellis entitled "Disability: A Culture? A Community? A Political Force?" (February 25). Ellis's post and position have kept me thinking about the existence of disability culture and its importance. Unlike Ellis and many others I think disability culture exists. In fact I would argue a vibrant disability culture is thriving in this country. So why was I not surprised to read that Ellis does not believe disability culture exists. He wrote "people with disabilities are too diverse to form a culture We're geographically dispersed; we don't speak a common language--heck we can't even agree on what to call ourselves; more than half of us get our disabilities in old age and 87% of us became disabled in adulthood." Ellis is hardly alone and has prestigious company in rejecting the notion disability culture exists. For instance in 1999 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg wrote "In no sensible way can one rank the large number of diverse individuals with correctable disabilities as a discrete and insular minority." I have but one word for Justice Ginsberg: bull!
I suspect it is commonly accepted that a disability culture does not exist. Part of the reason for this assumption is our inability to precisely define culture. Ask 100 people to define culture and you are likely to get 100 different definitions. Most would agree culture is important and I would maintain it is one of the founding ideas of the social sciences. I was drawn to anthropology in large part because they took culture and its importance seriously. The word itself looms large in anthropological literature. We anthropologists write about cultural traits, cultural complexes, cultural evolution, culture types, culture areas, cultural diffusion, cultural migrations, cultural decay, cultural convergence, etc. In spite of a rich and diverse literature devoted to the concept of culture there is no universal agreement on a single definition of culture. This is both a problem and strength of the discipline and gets me back to disability culture. If we take a traditional view of disability culture, that is compare it to other minority groups such as black Americans we will not measure up. There are no impoverished disability neighborhoods, ethnic foods associated with disability, music, or schools dominated by our presence. Simply put people with a disability do not conform to accepted notions associated with minority groups with a recognized history. But this does not mean disability culture is a myth. I think we people with a disability share a collective cultural identity. By extension then I would argue a disability culture exists. Collective political identification has been a major factor in passing legislation designed to empower people with disabilities for the last 40 years. This collective political identification took place for complex reasons foremost among them self identification and definition. Being disabled in American society is a profoundly different experience. For many, our disability becomes a part of our identity and cannot be separated from the disability experience. Part of the disability experience is social injustice. Barriers are common place today, both social and architectural. Equal access does not exist. Unemployment is rampant. Transportation and housing are grossly unequal. Demeaning beliefs about the impact disability has on one's life remain the norm. This does not mean I feel a kinship with every person with a disability. However, as my mentor Robert Murphy wrote long ago in the Body Silent that "the most lasting benefits of any struggle against perceived oppression are not the tangible gains but the transformation of consciousness of the combatants". This is exactly how I perceive myself--a combatant. It is the other people with a disability that are combatants that form the core of disability culture. We fight less for ourselves than we do for those unable or unwilling to fight for themselves. We fight the good fight, the lonely never ending fight for equality. Such a fight winds us few friends. I know this all too well as I am hardly popular for asserting my rights and pointing out gross injustices.
What I find infuriating is the lack of value placed on inclusion today. Sure we have laws that mandate access but those laws are often ignored and certainly not valued. We do nothing more than than pay lip service to inclusion. Far more time is spent trying to figure out how to legally avoid inclusion than come up with creative ways to be inclusive. People who are different, that is those that cannot walk or do not think and learn at a prescribed rate are a "problem" or worse, "special". This implies we have a choice as to be inclusive or not. How do we justify such exclusionary practices? Here are my top ten reasons:
The ADA is not followed or ignored.
There is no obvious benefit to inclusion.
Accessibility is a technical problem.
Disability is something people do not want to think about or simply fear.
Access is already accomplished.
Disabled are not part of mainstream society.
Accessibility is not cool or ugly.
No disabled people complain or are seen.
Access requires involvement and engagement with disabled people.
There is no �Martin Luther King� of disabled people.
Without a vibrant disability culture I do not think real social progress can be made. We need disability culture to become a legitimate and powerful force at the local, state and federal level. We need to be a presence at all levels to become part of a national dialogue. We are on the cusp of creating such a national dialogue. We are reaching a critical mass of people many whom are like me angry about the social inequities I face every day. The trick is to channel that anger, use it to our benefit and mercilessly point out the gross social injustices that exist. When we do this we will do the hardest thing possible--change the nation's ideology in terms of disability. When this happens I will consider myself equal to all those that walk past me daily.
I suspect it is commonly accepted that a disability culture does not exist. Part of the reason for this assumption is our inability to precisely define culture. Ask 100 people to define culture and you are likely to get 100 different definitions. Most would agree culture is important and I would maintain it is one of the founding ideas of the social sciences. I was drawn to anthropology in large part because they took culture and its importance seriously. The word itself looms large in anthropological literature. We anthropologists write about cultural traits, cultural complexes, cultural evolution, culture types, culture areas, cultural diffusion, cultural migrations, cultural decay, cultural convergence, etc. In spite of a rich and diverse literature devoted to the concept of culture there is no universal agreement on a single definition of culture. This is both a problem and strength of the discipline and gets me back to disability culture. If we take a traditional view of disability culture, that is compare it to other minority groups such as black Americans we will not measure up. There are no impoverished disability neighborhoods, ethnic foods associated with disability, music, or schools dominated by our presence. Simply put people with a disability do not conform to accepted notions associated with minority groups with a recognized history. But this does not mean disability culture is a myth. I think we people with a disability share a collective cultural identity. By extension then I would argue a disability culture exists. Collective political identification has been a major factor in passing legislation designed to empower people with disabilities for the last 40 years. This collective political identification took place for complex reasons foremost among them self identification and definition. Being disabled in American society is a profoundly different experience. For many, our disability becomes a part of our identity and cannot be separated from the disability experience. Part of the disability experience is social injustice. Barriers are common place today, both social and architectural. Equal access does not exist. Unemployment is rampant. Transportation and housing are grossly unequal. Demeaning beliefs about the impact disability has on one's life remain the norm. This does not mean I feel a kinship with every person with a disability. However, as my mentor Robert Murphy wrote long ago in the Body Silent that "the most lasting benefits of any struggle against perceived oppression are not the tangible gains but the transformation of consciousness of the combatants". This is exactly how I perceive myself--a combatant. It is the other people with a disability that are combatants that form the core of disability culture. We fight less for ourselves than we do for those unable or unwilling to fight for themselves. We fight the good fight, the lonely never ending fight for equality. Such a fight winds us few friends. I know this all too well as I am hardly popular for asserting my rights and pointing out gross injustices.
What I find infuriating is the lack of value placed on inclusion today. Sure we have laws that mandate access but those laws are often ignored and certainly not valued. We do nothing more than than pay lip service to inclusion. Far more time is spent trying to figure out how to legally avoid inclusion than come up with creative ways to be inclusive. People who are different, that is those that cannot walk or do not think and learn at a prescribed rate are a "problem" or worse, "special". This implies we have a choice as to be inclusive or not. How do we justify such exclusionary practices? Here are my top ten reasons:
The ADA is not followed or ignored.
There is no obvious benefit to inclusion.
Accessibility is a technical problem.
Disability is something people do not want to think about or simply fear.
Access is already accomplished.
Disabled are not part of mainstream society.
Accessibility is not cool or ugly.
No disabled people complain or are seen.
Access requires involvement and engagement with disabled people.
There is no �Martin Luther King� of disabled people.
Without a vibrant disability culture I do not think real social progress can be made. We need disability culture to become a legitimate and powerful force at the local, state and federal level. We need to be a presence at all levels to become part of a national dialogue. We are on the cusp of creating such a national dialogue. We are reaching a critical mass of people many whom are like me angry about the social inequities I face every day. The trick is to channel that anger, use it to our benefit and mercilessly point out the gross social injustices that exist. When we do this we will do the hardest thing possible--change the nation's ideology in terms of disability. When this happens I will consider myself equal to all those that walk past me daily.
Baby Isaiah Dies
Friday, March 12, 2010
Various news outlets are reporting that Baby Isaiah died yesterday in his parents arms. I wrote about Bay Isaiah and the larger implications of the case. Baby Isaiah death was announced by Rosanna Saccomani, lawyer for the parents who read a prepared statement. The news of Baby Isaiah death came hours before the court was expected to hear testimony from Dr. Richard Taylor, a neonatal specialist that examined the infant. Dr. Taylor told CBS News that he agreed with earlier assessments that there was no brain function. In his estimation "there have been no cases in the literature or, as far as I am aware, of a child who has had this degree of injury to the brain ever recovering to any sort of meaningful extent". I cannot dispute this nor can I speculate on what sort of life Baby Isaiah may or may not have had. What I can comment on is that the life of those with profound cognitive and physical deficits are not valued. That goes for both Canada and the United States. By extension, the lives of other people that are deemed abnormal are also somehow diminished. Those whose lives are not valued or diminished include a wide variety of people, myself included. My existence is not valued because I use a wheelchair. People remind me of this every day. Why just today I was told I was "inspiring because I shop for groceries like anyone else". Gee, thanks. Obviously the expectations for my life, the degree to which it is meaningful to use Dr. Taylor's word is severely limited. I beg to differ in spite of the fact this assessment is made by many that see me during the course of a day. Again, I have no idea if the decision made by the parents was right or wrong. I do know my heart goes out to them. However, I worry about the other babies like Isaiah that do not have parents as willing to fight for the life of their child. What happens to other children whose existence is deemed marginal, their life somehow lacking in meaning? This thought keeps me up at night for two reasons: first, selfishly I wonder if some doctor will decide I have suffered enough and allow me die thereby ending my miserable existence. Second, exactly how do we determine whose life is worth living and whose life is not. I don't think I will sleep well tonight with these thoughts rattling around my brain.
Mergers and acquisitions
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The meaning of any document in a business archive is derived from its context; documents should be arranged in a way which reflects the administrative or business processes which generated them. This means that an archivist, in the first stages of cataloguing a business collection, finds themselves acting more like a researcher. We have to delve into the records to find any evidence of how the company was organised, its functions etc (an organisational chart is always a handy find), and read any publications which may help (a published history of the business is ideal). Since January I have been busy doing just that, in order to get my head round the complicated history of The South Wales Transport Company Limited (SWT).
To summarise briefly, in 1914 SWT began life as a subsidiary of the British Electric Traction Company (BET), primarily operating buses. In 1899 the Mumbles Railway and Pier undertakings of Swansea and Mumbles Railway Company Limited were leased to another subsidiary of BET, the Swansea Improvements and Tramways Company (SITC). In 1927 SITC assigned its interests in the Mumbles Railway to SWT, who then acquired full control of the company in 1930. SWT then purchased the railway from the original owning companies (Swansea and Mumbles Railway Company and the Mumbles Railway and Pier Company) in 1958, before it was abandoned in 1960.
A number of smaller bus companies were absorbed into SWT, including Llanelly District Traction Company (acquired in 1952) and J James and Sons Limited, Ammanford (acquired in 1962). Control of two other ex-BET concerns was transferred to SWT in 1969, Neath and Cardiff Luxury Coaches Limited and Thomas Bros (Port Talbot) Limited, before being completely absorbed in Jan 1971. SWT had exchanged bus routes with United Welsh Services Limited, a company formed to amalgamate the Red and White associated independent bus companies around Swansea, in 1939 and 1953. SWT eventually took over this company in Jan 1971.
In 1967-1968 SWT was transferred from BET to the Transport Holding Company, a company which held shares of state owned companies. In 1969 the National Bus Company took over all of the Transport Holding Company�s interests in England and Wales, including SWT. The Transport Act of 1985 meant that National Bus Company subsidiaries were to be privatised and on 8 May 1987 the company was purchased by its management team. A few more acquisitions of smaller bus companies followed, before the company was absorbed by First Cymru Buses Ltd (part of the First Group) in the 1990s.
There are also added complications which have had to be taken into account when cataloguing the collection. Although SWT and SITC were separate BET subsidiaries, they were closely linked and shared management and secretaries which means there is a definite overlap in some records. Western Welsh Omnibus Services Limited, another ex-BET company, transferred 2 of its depots at Neath Abbey and Haverford West to SWT in 1972, so the collection also holds a set of plans for, and by, Western Welsh. There are also papers referring to several acts and agreements between the various companies, and the Swansea Corporation, who themselves leased routes of the Mumbles Railway.
The point of this entry is not just to perplex people with the ins and outs of the South Wales Transport Company, but to show that the content of the collection includes papers from a variety of transport related companies and organisations. Consequently, it holds a wealth of information on the history of transport (both railway and bus), not just in Swansea, but throughout South Wales.
Glossary:
BET: British Electric Traction Company Limited
SITC: Swansea Improvements and Tramways Company Limited
SWT: South Wales Transport Company Limited
To summarise briefly, in 1914 SWT began life as a subsidiary of the British Electric Traction Company (BET), primarily operating buses. In 1899 the Mumbles Railway and Pier undertakings of Swansea and Mumbles Railway Company Limited were leased to another subsidiary of BET, the Swansea Improvements and Tramways Company (SITC). In 1927 SITC assigned its interests in the Mumbles Railway to SWT, who then acquired full control of the company in 1930. SWT then purchased the railway from the original owning companies (Swansea and Mumbles Railway Company and the Mumbles Railway and Pier Company) in 1958, before it was abandoned in 1960.
A number of smaller bus companies were absorbed into SWT, including Llanelly District Traction Company (acquired in 1952) and J James and Sons Limited, Ammanford (acquired in 1962). Control of two other ex-BET concerns was transferred to SWT in 1969, Neath and Cardiff Luxury Coaches Limited and Thomas Bros (Port Talbot) Limited, before being completely absorbed in Jan 1971. SWT had exchanged bus routes with United Welsh Services Limited, a company formed to amalgamate the Red and White associated independent bus companies around Swansea, in 1939 and 1953. SWT eventually took over this company in Jan 1971.
In 1967-1968 SWT was transferred from BET to the Transport Holding Company, a company which held shares of state owned companies. In 1969 the National Bus Company took over all of the Transport Holding Company�s interests in England and Wales, including SWT. The Transport Act of 1985 meant that National Bus Company subsidiaries were to be privatised and on 8 May 1987 the company was purchased by its management team. A few more acquisitions of smaller bus companies followed, before the company was absorbed by First Cymru Buses Ltd (part of the First Group) in the 1990s.
There are also added complications which have had to be taken into account when cataloguing the collection. Although SWT and SITC were separate BET subsidiaries, they were closely linked and shared management and secretaries which means there is a definite overlap in some records. Western Welsh Omnibus Services Limited, another ex-BET company, transferred 2 of its depots at Neath Abbey and Haverford West to SWT in 1972, so the collection also holds a set of plans for, and by, Western Welsh. There are also papers referring to several acts and agreements between the various companies, and the Swansea Corporation, who themselves leased routes of the Mumbles Railway.
The point of this entry is not just to perplex people with the ins and outs of the South Wales Transport Company, but to show that the content of the collection includes papers from a variety of transport related companies and organisations. Consequently, it holds a wealth of information on the history of transport (both railway and bus), not just in Swansea, but throughout South Wales.
Glossary:
BET: British Electric Traction Company Limited
SITC: Swansea Improvements and Tramways Company Limited
SWT: South Wales Transport Company Limited
Assisted Suicide in Washington: The Death Toll 36
Saturday, March 6, 2010
News outlets are writing about the Washington State Department of Health 2009 Death with Dignity Act Report that was just released. I carefully read the Executive summary and am chilled to the bone. Of one thing I am sure: I will never reside in a state where assisted suicide is legal. I am not being hysterical or alarmist. I simply value my life however crippled I may be or become. Obviously, the residents of Washington, Oregon, and Montana do not feel the same way. And frankly so do many other people that live from coast to coast. I know this because in subtle and overt ways strangers and friends alike have made it clear the life of people with a disability are not as valuable. Don't doubt me. I have read multiple emergency preparedness plans and if a disaster takes place who is going to treated at a hospital and evacuated? No person that is elderly, disabled, or anyone else who is not physically fit.
Who exactly chose to die in Washington? Medication, don't you just love the euphemism here, was dispensed to 63 individuals. Prescriptions were written by 53 different physicians. Prescriptions dispensed by 29 different pharmacists. 47 individuals have died. 36 died after ingesting medication. 7 died without having ingested medication. The 4 remaining who died status is unknown. The age range was between 48 and 95 years. 94% lived west of the Cascades. 79% had cancer. 9% had neuro-degenerative disease including ALS. 12% had respiratory illness or disease. These statistics, charts and graphs and much more can be found in the Executive Summary. Death has been processed and is clearly very efficient. But what the figures above don't indicate is why. Why are people choosing to die? Here is where we get into why assisted suicide is so dangerous. I am opposed to assisted suicide as are many others with a disability (though not all) because of the reasoning involved and justifications used to make it legal. So, why did people choose to die in Washington: from the executive report.
Table 3. End of Life Concerns reported from the After Death Reporting From. Data is available for 44 of the 47 participants in 2009 that died.
Losing autonomy, 100%
Less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable, 91%
Loss of dignity, 82%
Losing control of bodily functions, 41%
Burden on family, friends/caregivers, 23%
Inadequate pain control or concerns about it, 25%
Financial implications of treatment, 2%
I am not terminally ill but have experienced or felt every single one of the above feelings. I do not have the ability to walk and hence have lost some individual autonomy in certain circumstances. There are activities I once enjoyed that I can no longer do that made life enjoyable. I have lost a degree of dignity. I am certainly socially inferior, less dignified, to those who are bipedal. I have lost control of many bodily functions. I do worry about being a burden to my son when I am old. I do worry about the financial implications of my disability. I would be a fool if I thought otherwise considering that I am sitting on a $400 wheelchair cushion designed to last two years at most (insurance does not cover such luxuries). I have in the past experienced gut wrenching pain that made me wish I was dead. Yet here I sit at my desk and cannot help but be perplexed. Why does my crippled body command so little respect. Why is my existence so easily called into question? Well, in part few have the experience of disability. Few realize just how fleeting our autonomy is and that its loss is hardly a tragedy. Bodily functions are just that and does it really matter how or under what circumstances one urinates and defecates. Why is so hard to accept that all life is valuable? Is the ability to control the flow of our own urine really critical to our existence and humanity? If this was the case I should have been put to death 30 years ago.
All sentient beings need to think long and hard about the assisted suicide. Sure on the surface assisted suicide sounds like a reasonable idea. We should be in control of our own destiny including the way we die. Well that control can be found in hospices that have revolutionized end of life care. What we need to do is keep our attention on the real issue--who is likely to want to die and why. Who may be encouraged to die and why? The answer to these questions is simple--those who want to die believe their life has no value. Hence who is at most risk. My crippled body, the elderly, terminally ill and those born with profound physical and cognitive deficits. We may be very different humans but one thing unites us--our life is thought to lack value. We humans value our autonomy. But how do we perceive that autonomy? Do I lack autonomy? You bet your ass I do. Do I lack dignity? In the estimation of many, yes. This is inherently dangerous thinking and takes place in every day. To me the assisted suicide debate is a smoke screen that obscures our humanity. What best glimpse is their into our humanity than the way we perceive and care for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Do we care for the elderly, value the end of their lives or put them in nursing home to rot away and die? Do we treat severely disabled children with compassion or kill them because we do consider their life worth living? These are hard questions with historical precedent and contemporary implications. Now that I am old (or at least in the eyes of my son) let me provide some historical precedent. In the olden days people with a high spinal cord injury did not survive. These people did not die of their injury, they died because doctors thought no one who was a quadriplegic could lead a rich and fill life. These people died of complications associated with their injury. This is a euphemism just as much as medication being prescribed for those in the State of Washington that fear the loss of autonomy, dignity, and the lack of control over bodily functions. We people with dysfunctional bodies have something to say about all this. We have a vested interest too. Just like all those that can walk, I too value my life. I just wish others thought the same way. This is a discussion that must be engaged by all people but especially those with a disability.
Who exactly chose to die in Washington? Medication, don't you just love the euphemism here, was dispensed to 63 individuals. Prescriptions were written by 53 different physicians. Prescriptions dispensed by 29 different pharmacists. 47 individuals have died. 36 died after ingesting medication. 7 died without having ingested medication. The 4 remaining who died status is unknown. The age range was between 48 and 95 years. 94% lived west of the Cascades. 79% had cancer. 9% had neuro-degenerative disease including ALS. 12% had respiratory illness or disease. These statistics, charts and graphs and much more can be found in the Executive Summary. Death has been processed and is clearly very efficient. But what the figures above don't indicate is why. Why are people choosing to die? Here is where we get into why assisted suicide is so dangerous. I am opposed to assisted suicide as are many others with a disability (though not all) because of the reasoning involved and justifications used to make it legal. So, why did people choose to die in Washington: from the executive report.
Table 3. End of Life Concerns reported from the After Death Reporting From. Data is available for 44 of the 47 participants in 2009 that died.
Losing autonomy, 100%
Less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable, 91%
Loss of dignity, 82%
Losing control of bodily functions, 41%
Burden on family, friends/caregivers, 23%
Inadequate pain control or concerns about it, 25%
Financial implications of treatment, 2%
I am not terminally ill but have experienced or felt every single one of the above feelings. I do not have the ability to walk and hence have lost some individual autonomy in certain circumstances. There are activities I once enjoyed that I can no longer do that made life enjoyable. I have lost a degree of dignity. I am certainly socially inferior, less dignified, to those who are bipedal. I have lost control of many bodily functions. I do worry about being a burden to my son when I am old. I do worry about the financial implications of my disability. I would be a fool if I thought otherwise considering that I am sitting on a $400 wheelchair cushion designed to last two years at most (insurance does not cover such luxuries). I have in the past experienced gut wrenching pain that made me wish I was dead. Yet here I sit at my desk and cannot help but be perplexed. Why does my crippled body command so little respect. Why is my existence so easily called into question? Well, in part few have the experience of disability. Few realize just how fleeting our autonomy is and that its loss is hardly a tragedy. Bodily functions are just that and does it really matter how or under what circumstances one urinates and defecates. Why is so hard to accept that all life is valuable? Is the ability to control the flow of our own urine really critical to our existence and humanity? If this was the case I should have been put to death 30 years ago.
All sentient beings need to think long and hard about the assisted suicide. Sure on the surface assisted suicide sounds like a reasonable idea. We should be in control of our own destiny including the way we die. Well that control can be found in hospices that have revolutionized end of life care. What we need to do is keep our attention on the real issue--who is likely to want to die and why. Who may be encouraged to die and why? The answer to these questions is simple--those who want to die believe their life has no value. Hence who is at most risk. My crippled body, the elderly, terminally ill and those born with profound physical and cognitive deficits. We may be very different humans but one thing unites us--our life is thought to lack value. We humans value our autonomy. But how do we perceive that autonomy? Do I lack autonomy? You bet your ass I do. Do I lack dignity? In the estimation of many, yes. This is inherently dangerous thinking and takes place in every day. To me the assisted suicide debate is a smoke screen that obscures our humanity. What best glimpse is their into our humanity than the way we perceive and care for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Do we care for the elderly, value the end of their lives or put them in nursing home to rot away and die? Do we treat severely disabled children with compassion or kill them because we do consider their life worth living? These are hard questions with historical precedent and contemporary implications. Now that I am old (or at least in the eyes of my son) let me provide some historical precedent. In the olden days people with a high spinal cord injury did not survive. These people did not die of their injury, they died because doctors thought no one who was a quadriplegic could lead a rich and fill life. These people died of complications associated with their injury. This is a euphemism just as much as medication being prescribed for those in the State of Washington that fear the loss of autonomy, dignity, and the lack of control over bodily functions. We people with dysfunctional bodies have something to say about all this. We have a vested interest too. Just like all those that can walk, I too value my life. I just wish others thought the same way. This is a discussion that must be engaged by all people but especially those with a disability.
An Olympian Black Out
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Olympics have just concluded. NBC did its usual corporate type broadcasting. To me, that means there was a plethora of taped, pre-programed events in five and ten minute blocks. Media darlings were created before the games began and many of them lived up to expectations. I also saw way too many commercials as it seemed that half of every broadcast was spent selling something. Yikes, do I sound jaded or what! Perhaps I am just burned out from watching too many obscure sports such as curling. Despite my words of protest, I did enjoy aspects of the Olympics. The visual images were striking and I truly enjoyed watching skiers, the opening and closing ceremonies, and was glued to the television during the Gold Medal men's hockey game.
I believe the Olympic create what some pundits call "media saturation". NBC devoted hundreds if not thousands of broadcast hours on the games via its constellation of television stations. I have no problem with this--we are talking about big business and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. However, there is a down side to this sort of saturation. The Paralympic Games will be held in March, from the 12th to the 21st in Vancouver. I am intensely interested in the Paralympics and for the last few days have been searching for a way to watch the games on television. As near as I can determine, there will no live coverage on any television network in American or abroad. None. Not one hour. Not even on NBC owned Universal Sports, home of the obscure sports. According to the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) the games will go multimedia. What does this mean? An official newsletter will be distributed daily entitled "Vancouver 2010 News". The president of the IPC, Sir Philip Craven, will keep a blog during the games to inform readers about what is taking place. The IPC will also have an internet channel, ParalympicSportTV. There will also be FaceBook page and highlights can be watched on You Tube.
The IPC is obviously trying very hard to gain media attention. A multimedia approach is surely the way to go but is a far cry from prime time television, spots on the national news, and extended newspaper coverage. The net result is the Paralympics will be held in a virtual media black out. Sure a few stories will appear in newspapers and I have no doubt a "heart warming" 30 to 90 second piece will be aired on a major network but that is the end of it. This is a shame as the Paralympics differ in no tangible way from the Olympics that had media saturation. Viewers will miss out on upsets, world class competition, and compelling story lines that make the Olympics a global phenomenon. I for one hope that ParalympicSportTV works well as I will be spending my evening trying to watch the games. I will even read the IPC newsletter and blog mentioned above. I do all this with a heavy heart as I know there is much that I and the rest of the country will miss.
I believe the Olympic create what some pundits call "media saturation". NBC devoted hundreds if not thousands of broadcast hours on the games via its constellation of television stations. I have no problem with this--we are talking about big business and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. However, there is a down side to this sort of saturation. The Paralympic Games will be held in March, from the 12th to the 21st in Vancouver. I am intensely interested in the Paralympics and for the last few days have been searching for a way to watch the games on television. As near as I can determine, there will no live coverage on any television network in American or abroad. None. Not one hour. Not even on NBC owned Universal Sports, home of the obscure sports. According to the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) the games will go multimedia. What does this mean? An official newsletter will be distributed daily entitled "Vancouver 2010 News". The president of the IPC, Sir Philip Craven, will keep a blog during the games to inform readers about what is taking place. The IPC will also have an internet channel, ParalympicSportTV. There will also be FaceBook page and highlights can be watched on You Tube.
The IPC is obviously trying very hard to gain media attention. A multimedia approach is surely the way to go but is a far cry from prime time television, spots on the national news, and extended newspaper coverage. The net result is the Paralympics will be held in a virtual media black out. Sure a few stories will appear in newspapers and I have no doubt a "heart warming" 30 to 90 second piece will be aired on a major network but that is the end of it. This is a shame as the Paralympics differ in no tangible way from the Olympics that had media saturation. Viewers will miss out on upsets, world class competition, and compelling story lines that make the Olympics a global phenomenon. I for one hope that ParalympicSportTV works well as I will be spending my evening trying to watch the games. I will even read the IPC newsletter and blog mentioned above. I do all this with a heavy heart as I know there is much that I and the rest of the country will miss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)