Month: January 2018

When Who Attacks?!

~ wheelhelmina ~ Leave a comment

My sister and I were terribly bored yesterday, and wanted to find something to watch while bujoing. Because I can’t remember my Amazon password, finishing our The Americans binge was not an option. We were left with Netflix, and ultimately decided on A & E: When Patients Attack. The single episode of the show is billed as a documentary showcasing the tough work of private security at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

In short, my sister and I were horrified. The first patient Security is called upon to deal with is an ambulatory patient who needs to go to the restroom, but refuses to use the bedpan provided by the hospital. In what appears to be a matter of minutes (although one can never really tell, given editing), the man is on the floor, pinned down by guards until police come. Seriously?! Why wouldn’t anyone permit this poor man to piss in a manner he found more conducive to the need – let alone give him any options? And why did hospital staff call on Security, who immediately escalated the situation?

Then we see a series of individuals seeking entrance to the hospital, but whose prior complaints and frequent-flyer status lead Security to believe no treatment is needed. Instead, these individuals are hanging out at the hospital because they are homeless and have nothing better to do. I could not understand why the first individual, Dean, was never offered some kind of volunteer position at the hospital. He clearly enjoyed being there and had no intention of leaving; why not give him a purpose and a sense of productivity while he is there? Queen Elizabeth Hospital went so far as to forbid one frequent-flyer, Frank, from returning for one year. In the updates at the end of the documentary, a caption revealed Frank died months after being banned. Do hospital staff still claim that he was not in need of treatment?

The final case that bugged my sister and I was a drunk woman with foot pain. Based on interviews from involved parties, it was easy to deduce that a nurse had done a brief interview with the patient. Because the patient was noisy and began to complain about wait times, Security was called to kick the patient out. The patient complained that no one had actually examined her foot, but staff claimed the examination was completed during the course of the interview. Really? No need for x-rays? No need to even take off the patient’s shoe and look at her foot? This vignette really illustrated the “merits” of socialized medicine!

If I were the attorney for Queen Elizabeth Hospital, I would never agree to the release of this documentary! And if I were a member of the staff, I would be absolutely mortified and ashamed!

Review: Far from the Tree

~ wheelhelmina ~ Leave a comment

Before reading Andrew Solomon‘s Far from the Tree, I had read one of his prior books, The Noonday Demon. While I enjoyed the latter, a long work about depression, Far from the Tree was, frankly, beyond disappointing. As a person with a severe physical disability, I found it insulting.

As the title suggests, in Far from the Tree Solomon explores the relationship between children and parents when those children have a horizontal identity. In other words, Solomon looks at families in which a child has a disability or some other identity which its parents do not share. Specifically, Solomon looks at parents affected by deafness, dwarfism, Down syndrome, autism, schizophrenia, multiple severe disabilities, prodigy, rape, and crime. He lauds himself for interviewing “more than three hundred families for [the] book, some briefly and some in depth, producing nearly forty thousand pages of interview transcripts.”

Interestingly – and frustratingly – Solomon appears much more interested in speaking with parents than with the children, themselves. This is especially clear when it comes to disabled subjects. Despite his attempts to appear neutral and present multiple perspectives, Solomon’s true feelings of disdain are apparent:

Disability activists often referred to Ashley’s loss of dignity, but having seen a number of similarly disabled people lifted up in pulleys with chains to be removed from bed, put in metal standers to preserve muscle tone, conveyed on rope systems into showers, I cannot see much dignity there. (Solomon at 389.)

This statement produced a visceral reaction from this reader. First, for those who don’t know about Ashley, do a quick Google search on “the Ashley treatment” and “the pillow angel.” Ashley’s parents were worried they would not be able to care for her if she grew into an adult, and asked physicians to perform a total hysterectomy on her, remove her breast buds, and provide hormonal therapy to keep her small. This kind of rights violation would be absolutely unthinkable if Ashley was not disabled.

That Solomon thinks the mutilation of a child preserves dignity while use a Hoyer lift does not is inconceivable. Perhaps that’s because I use a lift myself when toileting and showering. I’m a lawyer. I’m a taxpayer. I’m a friend. I consider myself pretty darn dignified.

Don’t read this book. Find something more interesting. Something that actually considers the disability perspective.

First Disability History Webinar

~ wheelhelmina ~ 1 Comment

Today marked the beginning of the History of Disabilities Webinar Series, hosted by the Southeast ADA Center and the Burton Blatt Institute. The first of four lessons, “The Tangled Roots of Disability Policy,” was taught by Dr. Larry Logue . Dr. Logue is a former Professor of History at Mississippi College and is currently a Senior Fellow at the Burton Blatt Institute.

The lecture began with a description of change the 19th Century. There was the Second Great Awakening, emphasis on prisoners completing work-based reform, and a drop in the US birthrate. Dr. Logue noted that each of these happenings involved emphasis on personal responsibility. One is responsible for his or her salvation, discipline, and family planning. Interestingly, it is at the same time that the “medical model” of disability emerges.

Yet, Dr. Logue asked participants to question, is the medical model really all that medical? After all, soldiers returning from the Civil War did not have good options for rehabilitation. Many opted for a cash payout rather than a government prosthetic. Or a returning vets completely outside the disability model system, in that their disabilities were caused by the public’s decision to go to war rather than a personal choice?

The Series’ material was interesting, but too short. Dr. Logue only spoke for about 25 minutes, leaving time for ample questions from the audience. Most questions were thought-provoking, but could not be answered because either: (1) the material is reserved for a future lesson in the Series or (2) no one has researched the issue yet. Maybe the Southeast ADA Center or the Burton Blatt Institute would like to offer research grants to interested parties? (Hint, hint…)