I do not want to die. This sentiment hardly makes me unusual. What does make me different is I have a legitimate worry. I worry someone will decide to kill me. I do not think someone will kill me maliciously, for spite, or hate. I worry someone will kill me with kindness in their heart. I am not paranoid. I know more than a few other people with a disability that have the same worry. Like it or not, people with a disability are not valued. Our lives are deemed tragic. Social expectations are limited at best. No one expects us to have a job, be a parent, or live a vibrant life. No, our role is to get well. For me, that means I should spend all my time thinking about walking. I should go from doctor to doctor to make this happen, subject myself to experimental stem cell treatment. If I did this I would be lauded as courageous. I consider efforts for cure to spinal cord injury an abject waste of my time. I can happily leave that quest to medical researchers. Instead, I rail against social prejudice and the stigma that clings to disability 20 years after the ADA supposedly made me equal to my bipedal peers. Of one thing I am sure, in daily life and in particular a hospital setting I am very far from equal.
I have been preoccupied with end of life issues since I read an article by Neil Shapiro in the Monterey Herald entitled �Right to Die Gives Dignity to the Disabled� (3/21/11). What strikes me as remarkable is the universal social support people with disabilities receive if they express a desire to die. Why is help to die given so willingly when social supports that are needed to live a full and equal life with a disability despised. Do not doubt me on this. Think for yourself. Read about draconian budget cuts sweeping the nation that adversely affects people with disabilities. Better yet talk to a parent of a child with a severe disability. They can regale you with horror stories about how they have to fight tooth and nail for the most basic support. Talk to a person with a disability who has no job or health insurance and as a result cannot afford a good wheelchair or cushion to prevent a pressure sore from developing.
Many disability studies scholars have explained why people with a disability are not valued. They argue knowledge is socially situated and has inherent logic to its members. Identities are socially constructed and fit into the aforementioned socially constructed knowledge. Certain bodies, disabled bodies (my body) are excluded from dominant social ideologies. The disabled body is inherently flawed. The person with a disability must be in pain, physical or mental. The person with a disability must be unhappy with his or her flawed body. The person with a disability has thus lost their dignity. The person with a disability has lost control and independence. This, for Americans, is a fate worse than death. So it makes sense to put the poor bastards out of their misery? Ah, no it does not. What the above reasoning utterly fails to consider is why. Why are people with disabilities shut off from routine social interaction? Instead of addressing this vexing question we have people like Neil Shapiro who out of the kindness of his hearts wants to help people with a disability die. He also thinks Dr. Kevorkian was a �quirky Michigan doctor�. Shapiro wrote:
�It seems to me that the right to decide that one has suffered enough, that whatever joy remains in life is outweighed by that suffering and that it is time to die, is one of the most fundamental of human and civil rights. Why should one's neighbors be able to dictate that one should not be able to terminate one's unbearable pain? But unless we follow Oregon and Washington, we may never have this right.
There is a great irony in all of this. Those who are not incapacitated are physically able to commit suicide, and need no assistance. Those who require, but are routinely denied, that assistance are the disabled. We spend billions of dollars making sure that they have the same right as the rest of us to shop, visit the beach and the like, but we deny them the right to die with dignity. Go figure.�
Where do I begin? If it were up to my neighbors as Shapiro puts it, I would have been denied an education. I would not be able to get on a bus or plane. I would not have a job or be father. We people with a disability had to fight for these fundamental rights. Even though we people with a disability are supposedly equal I have never felt that way�ever. The idea of equality for people with a disability is illusive at best. As for the billions of dollars spent on access, which Shapiro seems to resent, has saved countless lives, mine included. But just because we spend money on access and inclusion does not mean we value the people who are supposedly equal and included. When it comes to disability rights, as a society we merely pay lip service to these inherent civil rights most take for granted. We do not in reality accept the presence of people with a disability. If we did I would not be forced to enter the back of so many buildings or have to call ahead to ask about access on a regular basis. Simply put, the disabled body remains unwanted and is perceived as defective. Worse yet, the disabled body is costly. Hospitals remain grossly inaccessible. Efforts to be inclusive are often ignored or belittled. The message society sends is not subtle. There is a word that comes to mind�oppression. Add in an illness, social isolation, dependence upon others and the logical leap to thinking my life is not worth living is dangerously short. Thus it is ever so easy to write one wants to control the way we die and the circumstances surrounding death. This desire is understandable but in my estimation dangerous for people with a disability. We need to take a much closer examination of the pros and cons to assisted suicide. When we do sentiments such as those expressed by Shapiro will be deemed not only dangerous but simply wrong.
Ancillary activities at Bargoed
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Powell Duffryn�s coke ovens and by-product recovery plant at Bargoed were a fine example of colliery enterprise. The company used some innovative methods to fully utilise the by-products of the raised coal. This included washing small coal, coking in re-generative by-products ovens, the manufacture of sulphuric acid and sulphate of ammonia and tar distillation. There was also a benzol plant and an ammonia plant. Some of the coal by-products produced were presotim (a wood preservative), presomet (a black bituminous paint for metals) and syntharar and synthacold (tar products for road services).
In 1934 the company set up a research laboratory to devise new processes for increasing the efficiency of carbonising, distillation and coal cleaning. In 1939 a new tar distillation plant at Caerphilly was opened to distil all the tar produced by the company, and also tar produced by all of the steel companies in South Wales which had coke ovens.
There are many files of correspondence (1917-1951) of Joseph West who was manager of Bargoed Laboratory, then later kept on by the National Coal Board as Carbonisation Officer for No 5 (South Wales) Area. The files include analysis of coal and its by-products, details of coke production and shipments, correspondence specific to certain chemical processes, the ammonia plant, and gasholders and purification. The collection also includes goods outwards books (1925-1951) and would make an excellent resource for historians interested in the ancillary activities of the coal mining industry.
Parenting and Disability: The Final Frontier?
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Last year I delivered a paper at Union College at a conference entitled Disability and Ethics through the Life Cycle: Cases Controversies & Finding Common Ground. My paper was about being a parent with a disability. I dragged my son to this conference. I did this for two reasons. First, he was about to graduate from high-school and would be heading off to college in the Fall. I wanted him to see how scholars interacted at a conference. Second, I wanted him to see me in action about a subject, disability rights, that I am passionate about. We had a good time though he was understandably bored at times. Fast forward to last week. I completed a revised and expanded version of my paper for publication. I spoke to my son about my paper, our experience, and how slowly things grind along in academic publishing. He expressed a modicum of interest as he considered the issue already resolved. The paper was delivered, revised copy submitted, and it was time to move on. The sub text was, come on, Dad, this is boring when he suddenly said �Dad, there is only one thing that bothers me about you being disabled�. Oh no, I thought! Where have I gone wrong and how badly have I screwed him up. I said go ahead and tell me. He replied, �Dad, every chair and couch in our house is uncomfortable and you don�t give a shit.� I replied �Guilty as charged!�
I was tremendously relieved by my son�s comment. In the back of my mind I have always had one worry: would my disability have a negative impact on my son? I think his sole complaint, a valid one I may add, is an indication I did many things right. In short I am proud of myself and my parenting skills. Aside from my pride in the way my son has grown and matured, I look back and know it was not easy. I know only one other paralyzed parent. She is much younger than I am with a kinder garden aged daughter. Based on our conversations, she is not encountering many of the problems I had when my son was a little boy. This is heartening to me. But some things have not changed. First, ever present amazement that a paralyzed person can be a parent. Second, explicit and grossly inappropriate questioning by health care providers that assumes a parent with a disability is not competent. Third, social exclusion of children that extends disability based prejudice. Fourth, exclusionary practices in secondary schools and private organizations that inhibit the ability of a parent with a disability to be actively involved in their child�s life.
The four variables above have been foremost on my mind because of a recent court case. Here I refer to Abbie Dorn who gave birth to triplets in 2006. Complications during the births led to severe blood loss and Dorn�s brain being deprived of oxygen. The result was severe brain damage. There is no agreement on the degree to which Abbie Dorn is aware or able to communicate. A year after the triplets births Dorn�s husband divorced her and moved with the children from South Carolina to Los Angeles, California. The case to me is about two things: first, a bitter fight between the father and Abbie Dorn�s parents. Second, the rights of all parents with what is perceived to be a profound disability. The mainstream media has jumped all over this story. Stories have appeared on ABC national news, AP, New York Times, LA Times and many other news outlets. All focus on the classic tragic nature of the case. Abbie Dorn�s parents maintain their daughter has the right to see her children on a regular basis. The father, in contrast, thinks his children will be emotionally traumatized by seeing their severely disabled mother. The case went to court where after a two week hearing the judge ruled the mother had temporary visitation rights. She will be allowed to see her children three hours a day for five straight days each year in her parents home with the father�s supervision. The mother is also allowed a 30-minute monthly videoconference with her children.
The attorneys for both mother and father are thrilled. Abbie Dorn�s lawyer said the ruling was astounding and a precedent setting victory for all disabled parents. The father�s lawyer was thrilled because the visits will be minimal and supervised. I see no victors in this case. I see nothing that can be construed as a victory for all parents with a disability. Of one thing I am sure: there is a deep division bordering on hatred between the father and Abbie Dorn�s mother Susan Cohen. If there are any victims in the case it is the children who are caught in the cross fire between adults that cannot put aside their differences and put the children�s best interests ahead of their own. There is however a subtext to the discussion of the Dorn case. This subtext is never articulated because there is no doubt Dorn cannot physically care for her children. This is not in dispute. The more general subtext is far more complex: are people with a disability capable parents? The social assumption is no, people with a disability are unfit parents. I know this is the case because I was repeatedly discriminated against as a parent with a disability. My fitness and ability as a parent was always questioned. People were not subtle: health care professionals I met in the emergency room where I took my son when he needed stitches questioned whether I was my son�s legal guardian and asked if I had documents to prove it. I doubt any father walking in the door of an emergency room would be asked the same question.
For years I would tease my friends that the bathroom represented the final frontier in terms of disability rights. Sure I could get in the door but precious few bathrooms were ever accessible. Over time I have had to stop using this line�too many bathrooms are now accessible. I suspect that final frontier may now be the right to be an ordinary parent. By ordinary, I mean �normal�. Normal here meaning physical access and social acceptance at schools and all other organizations associated with youth development. Normalcy is something I never experienced raising my son. Does this sound like sour grapes? In part yes. But my son learned some hard lessons about discrimination other kids read about in books. The discrimination I faced and by extension what he experienced as well made him a more understanding person. He understands discrimination in a visceral way. He directly relates to civil rights movements of all oppressed groups. I wish he did not have this first hand knowledge but I look for the positive elements. And his complaint about my furniture is a sure sign he was in no way negatively impacted. Kids I have learned are amazingly adaptable. No kid has ever discriminated against me. Such bias is learned behavior. They learn how to be afraid or discriminate from their parents. I see this lesson being taught all the time. For instance when I go to the grocery store parents inevitably grab their kids hand and state, �watch out for that man in the wheelchair�. The message sent to the child is clear: people with a disability are dangerous, they have a tainted social identity. Now this is something I would like to see discussed. Rather than the tragic elements associated with disability. For I see no tragedy in disability just a group of diverse humans.
I was tremendously relieved by my son�s comment. In the back of my mind I have always had one worry: would my disability have a negative impact on my son? I think his sole complaint, a valid one I may add, is an indication I did many things right. In short I am proud of myself and my parenting skills. Aside from my pride in the way my son has grown and matured, I look back and know it was not easy. I know only one other paralyzed parent. She is much younger than I am with a kinder garden aged daughter. Based on our conversations, she is not encountering many of the problems I had when my son was a little boy. This is heartening to me. But some things have not changed. First, ever present amazement that a paralyzed person can be a parent. Second, explicit and grossly inappropriate questioning by health care providers that assumes a parent with a disability is not competent. Third, social exclusion of children that extends disability based prejudice. Fourth, exclusionary practices in secondary schools and private organizations that inhibit the ability of a parent with a disability to be actively involved in their child�s life.
The four variables above have been foremost on my mind because of a recent court case. Here I refer to Abbie Dorn who gave birth to triplets in 2006. Complications during the births led to severe blood loss and Dorn�s brain being deprived of oxygen. The result was severe brain damage. There is no agreement on the degree to which Abbie Dorn is aware or able to communicate. A year after the triplets births Dorn�s husband divorced her and moved with the children from South Carolina to Los Angeles, California. The case to me is about two things: first, a bitter fight between the father and Abbie Dorn�s parents. Second, the rights of all parents with what is perceived to be a profound disability. The mainstream media has jumped all over this story. Stories have appeared on ABC national news, AP, New York Times, LA Times and many other news outlets. All focus on the classic tragic nature of the case. Abbie Dorn�s parents maintain their daughter has the right to see her children on a regular basis. The father, in contrast, thinks his children will be emotionally traumatized by seeing their severely disabled mother. The case went to court where after a two week hearing the judge ruled the mother had temporary visitation rights. She will be allowed to see her children three hours a day for five straight days each year in her parents home with the father�s supervision. The mother is also allowed a 30-minute monthly videoconference with her children.
The attorneys for both mother and father are thrilled. Abbie Dorn�s lawyer said the ruling was astounding and a precedent setting victory for all disabled parents. The father�s lawyer was thrilled because the visits will be minimal and supervised. I see no victors in this case. I see nothing that can be construed as a victory for all parents with a disability. Of one thing I am sure: there is a deep division bordering on hatred between the father and Abbie Dorn�s mother Susan Cohen. If there are any victims in the case it is the children who are caught in the cross fire between adults that cannot put aside their differences and put the children�s best interests ahead of their own. There is however a subtext to the discussion of the Dorn case. This subtext is never articulated because there is no doubt Dorn cannot physically care for her children. This is not in dispute. The more general subtext is far more complex: are people with a disability capable parents? The social assumption is no, people with a disability are unfit parents. I know this is the case because I was repeatedly discriminated against as a parent with a disability. My fitness and ability as a parent was always questioned. People were not subtle: health care professionals I met in the emergency room where I took my son when he needed stitches questioned whether I was my son�s legal guardian and asked if I had documents to prove it. I doubt any father walking in the door of an emergency room would be asked the same question.
For years I would tease my friends that the bathroom represented the final frontier in terms of disability rights. Sure I could get in the door but precious few bathrooms were ever accessible. Over time I have had to stop using this line�too many bathrooms are now accessible. I suspect that final frontier may now be the right to be an ordinary parent. By ordinary, I mean �normal�. Normal here meaning physical access and social acceptance at schools and all other organizations associated with youth development. Normalcy is something I never experienced raising my son. Does this sound like sour grapes? In part yes. But my son learned some hard lessons about discrimination other kids read about in books. The discrimination I faced and by extension what he experienced as well made him a more understanding person. He understands discrimination in a visceral way. He directly relates to civil rights movements of all oppressed groups. I wish he did not have this first hand knowledge but I look for the positive elements. And his complaint about my furniture is a sure sign he was in no way negatively impacted. Kids I have learned are amazingly adaptable. No kid has ever discriminated against me. Such bias is learned behavior. They learn how to be afraid or discriminate from their parents. I see this lesson being taught all the time. For instance when I go to the grocery store parents inevitably grab their kids hand and state, �watch out for that man in the wheelchair�. The message sent to the child is clear: people with a disability are dangerous, they have a tainted social identity. Now this is something I would like to see discussed. Rather than the tragic elements associated with disability. For I see no tragedy in disability just a group of diverse humans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)