Civil rights for disabled people or some people don't find any accommodations reasonable

[Summah]

There's been a debate going on in another thread about accommodations, rather than continue this there (and there are already several posts back and forth between pb and another poster about this), I thought it would be better to start a new thread.

Let's not get too far off track, but I was under the impression that 'reasonable accommodations' should be met, but if they are able to control the condition with medication and therapy, it's not considered a disability. (Sutton vs. US Airways, Murphy vs UPS, Albertsons vs kirkinburg). Again, I think it's selfish, but that's just me. We are not special snowflakes. At what point does the problem you are experience become an issue for everyone else? If you disrupt one, or even two students due to your 'accommodations' isn't it a zero sum game? Aren't you now infringing on their rights to learn, work, or function? Learn to adapt to the world, even with an ailment.

Way to go on not actually reading my post either before responding in that typical way. First, not all situations can be controlled by medical treatments alone. Mine certainly can't, it's considered refractory or intractable, and I am not alone in this. Some conditions don't have any adequate treatments at all. Second, do you think that someone has a right to use flashing lights in a classroom even when they know there is someone present with epilepsy who is triggered by flashing lights? Someone not adequately helped by medical treatment. Because that is equivalent to what rights you think this student should have had. I also suspect in this case the student's dislike of my accommodation had a lot more to do with her dislike of me and my ethnicity than it had to do with disability accommodation. Why would you assume that the one person who took issue was actually reasonable in her objections, especially considering you know none of the specifics? Furthermore, why would you assume that I was not also doing things to make things better for myself, things that in no way involved things that impacted other people directly? Some people find it distressing to see people with disabilities at all, should everyone with a visible disability stay home and never go out in public so that those people aren't inconvenienced or upset by having to see the disturbing bodies of those with disabilities? Third, I should point out that you have absolutely no idea what my accommodations were, yet you feel free to judge them none the less, it also appears you also have no idea what disabilit(ies) I have, and yet again assumptions and judgments are made. Finally thank you for making arguments that suggest you'd like roll back disability rights 50 years, and, as you made quite clear, for letting me know how ableist some of your opinions are.

[polishgenius]

I could be wrong, but I think the entire discussion came out of PB misunderstanding Dr. Pepper. As I understood it, he wasn't talking about messing with anyone else's space, just that he wasn't going to go to a therapist whose office made him uncomfortable.

But on the specific discussion we have here: I can't say quite where it is, but there has to be a line. Even if peterbound's point is unfair to you in particular and based on an awful lot of assumptions, the broad point that at some stage you have to accept that some people can't or shouldn't do some things but that's not a reason to stop others doing them is fair.

This goes both ways. Making all visibly disabled people stay in because some people find them uncomfortable to look at would obviously be an unreasonable 'accommodation'. But then no-one is demanding that. As far as I know.

[Summah]

I could be wrong, but I think the entire discussion came out of PB misunderstanding Dr. Pepper. As I understood it, he wasn't talking about messing with anyone else's space, just that he wasn't going to go to a therapist whose office made him uncomfortable.

Yes that's the discussion I was referring to.

But on the specific discussion we have here: I can't say quite where it is, but there has to be a line. Even if peterbound's point is unfair to you in particular and based on an awful lot of assumptions, the broad point that at some stage you have to accept that some people can't or shouldn't do some things but that's not a reason to stop others doing them is fair.

And the legal standards in the US are reasonable accommodation and equal access. So if there is a receptionist job requiring answering phones, then there is not a reasonable accommodation available for a deaf person because an essential part of that job is answering the phone. However if there is a customer service position that can be made to work for a blind person by installing screen reading software or a braille display, then that is a reasonable accommodation and is required by law. Likewise a new public building is required to be accessible, with ramps available for those who cannot use stairs etc, but a newly built single family home has no such legal requirements, because the general public does not require access.

This goes both ways. Making all visibly disabled people stay in because some people find them uncomfortable to look at would obviously be an unreasonable 'accommodation'. But then no-one is demanding that. As far as I know.

And yet one hears comments like "I can't believe they let that <derogatory word> out in public (unsupervised)."

[Salafi Stannis]

Could someone link to the previous thread because I've little idea what's going on.

[zelticgar]

I'm a bit of a Disney fanatic and this debate comes up a lot in relation to the park access provided to special needs visitors. It used to be that Disney would issue a GAC Card allowing SN visitors to go to the front of the line. The program was experiencing some abuse so they switched to a new program that requires people to either wait in line (they adjusted their lines to accommodate), or pick up a fast pass type card to return at a specific time. For the most part the program is well received but there is still some push back from folks wanting immediate access to the rides. The lawsuits are coming in so it will be interesting to see how things turn out as the courts start ruling on the new program.

[Summah]

KStM, the exchange (mostly between peterbound and dr pepper) is in this thread: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/122417-i-need-help/ I didn't want to contribute to further derailing that one, so I made this thread.

zelticgar, I don't think skipping to the front of lines should be considered a reasonable accommodation in most circumstances, though I know that's frequent and happens at places like airports as well. Some people cannot stand and wait in line, but can sit and wait, I think in that case the more reasonable accommodation is to have some type of seating available while they wait (for those who need it). I think places like Disney originally made the decision that it's easier to just let people skip to the front, but then that was abused and people rented out their ability to skip lines. I wonder who the pushback is from exactly, perhaps those who took people to the front of lines for money and those who paid.

[zelticgar]

Summah,

I think the push back is mostly from parents of autistic children who could have trouble waiting in line (which i totally get). The argument is that even if the parks provide a return time so they can go directly to the front that the action of actually having to go to the ride, leave and then return could cause enough of an issue that it is not a reasonable accommodation. I have a feeling the argument wont have legs but it is an interesting argument. It really does outline the fact that even places that go above and beyond to provide reasonable accommodations still struggle to define it.

[Altherion]

zelticgar, I don't think skipping to the front of lines should be considered a reasonable accommodation in most circumstances, though I know that's frequent and happens at places like airports as well.

At airports, it makes sense because otherwise, people in wheelchairs or with impaired mobility would just block the aisles when boarding and getting their stuff stowed away. It's better for everyone if they board first and the flight attendants help them out without having to shove their way through a crowd. The same logic also applies to people with small children so they usually get the same treatment. The other side of the coin is that they generally tend to get off the plane after everyone else so it's hard to complain.

That said, I don't understand why anyone would do this at theme parks. When I was a child, we went do Disneyland with my extended family, including my cousin's grandparents who had trouble walking (they could walk, but not for hours at a time). I was pretty surprised when Disney not only provided wheelchairs, but also allowed all of us (i.e. not just the grandparents, but the kids and the parents too) to skip to the front of the line. It was pretty convenient, but I don't see how that's fair.

[MoIaF]

I think reasonable accommodations are perfectly fine, most of the time they inconvenience very few people. I think the objections stem for some people abusing the system, however, this is also true of almost any public system. There are just those who will always abuse the system.

I know from personal experience that most disabled people hate inconveniencing others, when we do it's because we have no other choice. Trust me it's as uncomfortable for me to inconvenience you as it is for you to be inconvenienced. The only difference is that I can't help it and I think that's what most people need to keep in mind.

[deleted01]

I think reasonable accommodations are perfectly fine, most of the time they inconvenience very few people. I think the objections stem for some people abusing the system, however, this is also true of almost any public system. There are just those who will always abuse the system.

I know from personal experience that most disabled people hate inconveniencing others, when we do it's because we have no other choice. Trust me it's as uncomfortable for me to inconvenience you as it is for you to be inconvenienced. The only difference is that I can't help it and I think that's what most people need to keep in mind.

This. I have a lot of trouble standing for any length of time, but I hate to ask for any accommodations to be made. Not only does it draw attention to something I'd rather keep to myself, but it can inconvenience others, which I hate. I tend to keep it to myself, and suffer for it later.

Recently, though, I was stood in a line at an event, and asked if a wheelchair might be made available, or if I might be able to pop out of the queue to sit down, but hold my place. Neither option was allowed, but they did rush off to get me a normal chair, despite my protests that having a chair that I'd have to drag along as the queue moved on would be a huge inconvenience to all, as well as more damaging to my disability. People not listening to me is something I've found to be quite common once my disability becomes known.

[peterbound]

There's been a debate going on in another thread about accommodations, rather than continue this there (and there are already several posts back and forth between pb and another poster about this), I thought it would be better to start a new thread.

Way to go on not actually reading my post either before responding in that typical asshole way. First, not all situations can be controlled by medical treatments alone. Mine certainly can't, it's considered refractory or intractable, and I am not alone in this. Some conditions don't have any adequate treatments at all. Second, do you think that someone has a right to use flashing lights in a classroom even when they know there is someone present with epilepsy who is triggered by flashing lights? Someone not adequately helped by medical treatment. Because that is equivalent to what rights you think this student should have had. I also suspect in this case the student's dislike of my accommodation had a lot more to do with her dislike of me and my ethnicity than it had to do with disability accommodation. Why would you assume that the one person who took issue was actually reasonable in her objections, especially considering you know none of the specifics? Furthermore, why would you assume that I was not also doing things to make things better for myself, things that in no way involved things that impacted other people directly? Some people find it distressing to see people with disabilities at all, should everyone with a visible disability stay home and never go out in public so that those people aren't inconvenienced or upset by having to see the disturbing bodies of those with disabilities? Third, I should point out that you have absolutely no idea what my accommodations were, yet you feel free to judge them none the less, it also appears you also have no idea what disabilit(ies) I have, and yet again assumptions and judgments are made. Finally thank you for making arguments that suggest you'd like roll back disability rights 50 years, and, as you made quite clear, for letting me know how ableist some of your opinions are.

The Supreme Court appears to agree with me. And as such, in those cases, aren't required to be treated in the same way as say..epilepsy, a physical deformity, or a missing limb. I'm all for helping those folks out. Shit, my last assignment in the fire dept was enforcing many of those standards. Got no issue with that. But if your telling me that you need to change the room around to make you feel comfortable, I'm going to ask the others that are sharing that space of td alright. Otherwise, ya, you might have to suck it up a little. Most people want I do the right thing, but they shouldn't have to suffer because someone else feels anxious.

[peterbound]

This. I have a lot of trouble standing for any length of time, but I hate to ask for any accommodations to be made. Not only does it draw attention to something I'd rather keep to myself, but it can inconvenience others, which I hate. I tend to keep it to myself, and suffer for it later.

Recently, though, I was stood in a line at an event, and asked if a wheelchair might be made available, or if I might be able to pop out of the queue to sit down, but hold my place. Neither option was allowed, but they did rush off to get me a normal chair, despite my protests that having a chair that I'd have to drag along as the queue moved on would be a huge inconvenience to all, as well as more damaging to my disability. People not listening to me is something I've found to be quite common once my disability becomes known.

Drac,

Not trying to be funny here, but if you are in that environment, and know you're going to be in that situation, why not bring your own wheelchair?

Seems fairly reasonable.

[Summah]

but what your mistaking here is that my main argument was being depressed isn't always considered a disability.

The Supreme Court appears to agree with me. And as such, in those cases, aren't required to be treated in the same way as say..epilepsy, a physical deformity, or a missing limb. I'm all for helping those folks out. Shit, my last assignment in the fire dept was enforcing many of those standards. Got no issue with that. But if your telling me that you need to change the room around to make you feel comfortable, I'm going to ask the others that are sharing that space of td alright. Otherwise, ya, you might have to suck it up a little. Most people want I do the right thing, but they shouldn't have to suffer because someone else feels anxious.

A couple things, while Theda's post is about depression, the argument you were having in the other thread with someone else seemed to involve bipolar disorder specifically, I responded about disability and accommodation generally by bringing up reasonable accommodation. Again you're making many assumptions about me, and I'm not sure why you're doing this. I never said that I personally have accommodations for depression or any other mental illness which was one of many assumptions you made. I personally have only ever had accommodations for physical disabilities, I don't have experience with what types of accommodation are considered reasonable for depression or any other mental illness based disability. That is why I brought up the epilepsy analogy, because it is similar.

Right depression isn't always disabling, but medication doesn't work for everyone or work adequately or work without intolerable side effects, just like every other condition that exists. And epilepsy if well controlled is probably not extremely disabling, missing limbs can also often be accommodated for without too much diffficulty, depending on location and where it's missing, how many limbs are missing etc., less easy to accommodate are complications like phantom limb pain or other pain caused by prosthesis, nerve injury or something else. I don't know exactly what you mean by "physical deformity", so I have no comment about that. But the point is basically that many conditions are on a continuum in terms of severity and how much disability occurs, and others are actually not as difficult to provide accommodation for as many people think.

Fuck, I'm not even sure what I said in that block of text that would lead you in that direction.

Have you read your posts?

People not listening to me is something I've found to be quite common once my disability becomes known.

People not listening is unfortunately a common problem for those of us who are disabled. Sometimes I find I just have to be extremely assertive even if people think I'm a bitch.

Drac,

Not trying to be funny here, but if you are in that environment, and know you're going to be in that situation, why not bring your own wheelchair?

Seems fairly reasonable.

Wheelchairs are not cheap and they're heavy. Unless she has a house that is already accessible, transportation that's accessible etc, using one's own chair requires some amount of lifting on the part of someone. Also using a manual chair is more difficult and requires more strength and energy than many think, many people that cannot stand for extended periods also cannot use a manual wheelchair under their own power for any extended period of time, electric chairs and scooters are even more expensive and heavier.

[peterbound]

That was actually much nicer than my initial response (in my head), which was the still the same when I reread it today and decided to create this post.

A couple things, while Theda's post is about depression, the argument you were having in the other thread with someone else seemed to involve bipolar disorder specifically, I responded about disability and accommodation generally by bringing up reasonable accommodation. Again you're making many assumptions about me, and I'm not sure why you're doing this. I never said that I personally have accommodations for depression or any other mental illness which was one of many assumptions you made. I personally have only ever had accommodations for physical disabilities, I don't have experience with what types of accommodation are considered reasonable for depression or any other mental illness based disability. That is why I brought up the epilepsy analogy, because it is similar.

Right depression isn't always disabling, but medication doesn't work for everyone or work adequately or work without intolerable side effects, just like every other condition that exists. And epilepsy if well controlled is probably not extremely disabling, missing limbs can also often be accommodated for without too much diffficulty, depending on location and where it's missing, how many limbs are missing etc., less easy to accommodate are complications like phantom limb pain or other pain caused by prosthesis, nerve injury or something else. I don't know exactly what you mean by "physical deformity", so I have no comment about that. But the point is basically that many conditions are on a continuum in terms of severity and how much disability occurs, and others are actually not as difficult to provide accommodation for as many people think.

Have you read your posts?

People not listening is unfortunately a common problem for those of us who are disabled. Sometimes I find I just have to be extremely assertive even if people think I'm a bitch.

Wheelchairs are not cheap and they're heavy. Unless she has a house that is already accessible, transportation that's accessible etc, using one's own chair requires some amount of lifting on the part of someone. Also using a manual chair is more difficult and requires more strength and energy than many think, many people that cannot stand for extended periods also cannot use a manual wheelchair under their own power for any extended period of time, electric chairs and scooters are even more expensive and heavier.

Well, being that you posted in a thread about mental disorders, and responded to the rights about mental disorders, it's pretty safe to say where the confusion about what the fuck you were talking about came from.

My response was about depression, and even bi polar, not sometimes being considered a 'disability' and not being covered under ADA. You want to not be cagey as shit, and get offended at shit that doesn't even apply to, it would be great.

You have spin this into something it's not (strawman much?). I have no issue with legitimate disabilities been accommodated, nor do I have issue with 'reasonable accommodation' for squeaky wheels not cover by ADA as it's not a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved.

As for wheelchairs. If there is legitimate disorder, shouldn't insurance cover it?

Saying that though, I just found about 10 websites that have wheelchairs listed at 120 a pop. Cheap price to pay for comfort.

[litechick]

I agree that the title is inflammatory. This is one of those subjects where anywhere you draw the line and say 'this is where it becomes unreasonable' is going to be viewed as insensitive.

I have a pet peeve with the audible pings which have been installed at street corners to help the blind. I don't know how blind people feel about them, maybe they are a lifesaver and I just don't know it. All I know is I hate having to listen to it as I'm loading and unloading vehicles. *ping *ping *ping *ping I acknowledge that my irritation is on the low end of the scale. There is an outdoor cafe right there and I can't imagine hanging out there because that repetitive sound would drive me right up the wall. I don't know whether the cafe has experienced a drop in business since the installation.

The worst though is my poor neighbors at that end of the building. They say in the summer they can hear it from inside their homes...all night long.

Surely there is a line to be crossed where you shouldn't annoy the fuck out of 100 people in order to help two or three people. Now, if the blind could wear a transmitter so that these aids were only activated when a blind person is in range, I could support it.

Also, what's wrong with these? It seems like the happy medium between going chairless, carrying a chair, and using a wheelchair.

[karaddin]

I think the title of the thread is inflammatory, personally.

I don't think that was by accident. Reading that thread I'm amazed at how somehow could be baffled by a hostile response. You don't have to be friendly or pleasant, but don't try to pretend you aren't being abrasive.

As for the pings of traffic lights, I have a whole bunch of sound issues that escalate to worse than annoyance, and I wouldn't dream of asking for that to be accommodated ahead of a feature that is pretty important for safety and functioning of a small minority.

[peterbound]

I don't think that was by accident. Reading that thread I'm amazed at how somehow could be baffled by a hostile response. You don't have to be friendly or pleasant, but don't try to pretend you aren't being abrasive.

As for the pings of traffic lights, I have a whole bunch of sound issues that escalate to worse than annoyance, and I wouldn't dream of asking for that to be accommodated ahead of a feature that is pretty important for safety and functioning of a small minority.

I'm not sure that was ever said in the last thread, or this one. At least by me. I'm all for accommodating those who have a defined disability, and reasonably accommodating as long as it doesn't completely fuck up the entire work space for others.

Again, I'll used the 'confused' example: You want to change the workspace or classroom setting (decor or positioning) to make yourself feel welcome? Whats to say thats not interfering with someone else's joy?

you need a wheelchair ramp. Throw that fucker in. Hell, I'll help build it. But you want to dim the lights because the fluorescents make you anxious? That might be something I'd have an issue with.

And as I stated in the other thread, It appears the supreme court agrees with me.

And of course you find no issue with it, I'm the one being attacked here. Not only is the title inflammatory, but it's completely inaccurate. But hey, as long as someone is sticking it good old Aaron, you're on board with it.

[karaddin]

You wandered into a thread with someone asking for help in getting their parents to accept they have a serious issue and decide to tell them to stop using it as an excuse - something they weren't doing, then go off at another person for being unreasonable on the basis of you completely misunderstanding what they were saying, but yes people saying you are acting like an asshole is just based on personal dislike of you.

[Altherion]

As for the pings of traffic lights, I have a whole bunch of sound issues that escalate to worse than annoyance, and I wouldn't dream of asking for that to be accommodated ahead of a feature that is pretty important for safety and functioning of a small minority.

Hmm... that's an interesting one. If it's merely annoying, that's obviously not enough to outweigh the needs of people with poor vision. On the other hand, if it is sufficiently loud and close enough to a home to deprive the residents of sleep, then I would say that another means of accommodation must be found. Chronic sleep deprivation is a serious problem.

[peterbound]

You wandered into a thread with someone asking for help in getting their parents to accept they have a serious issue and decide to tell them to stop using it as an excuse - something they weren't doing, then go off at another person for being unreasonable on the basis of you completely misunderstanding what they were saying, but yes people saying you are acting like an asshole is just based on personal dislike of you.

I actually 'wandered' (how the fuck you wander onto an advice thread is beyond me) onto a thread, and gave my own experience in dealing with parents, co workers, and friends about my own battles with depression, and how I handled it. Should I not have shared that information? Should you not share your information with folks transitioning because it's only applicable to you? That was the specific advise she was asking for. Telling your parents you have depression issues, and not doing anything to fix it isn't going to help them understand the problem.

To me, working the problem, getting help, and explaining to them that you are actively pursuing a way to deal with it helps others understand that it's actually a 'thing'. Not some made up ailment. As for DP. Ya, we had a spat. I thought he was attacking me (and still do), but I did misunderstand the office issue. I was pretty quick to point that out when I got what he/she was saying. I'm not going to go through that again, but my feelings on it are stated above.

Fuck it. I just have to realize that I represent some sort of horrible ideal to you, and even if I posted on here that the goddamn sky was blue and the everyone should be able to express themselves in what ever way they want, you'd still try to find a way to make me feel like shit about it.