My spring semester at Syracuse has been unique. Never in my teaching career have I had such a semester. I missed many classes due to family issues and minor illnesses. This is way out of character for me. I typically go several years without missing a class. I also rarely get typical illnesses, such as the stomach bug that I had. When I get sick I usually do it in regal fashion as in become critically ill in the middle of the night on a national holiday. Yes, my timing is impeccable.
The boring preamble above is my way of edging my way into a new and long delayed post. I am not happy. I am experiencing a general malaise affecting my entire life. I am not inspired to write. I am not inspired to cook a good meal. I am not inspired to ride my bike. I am not inspired to go for a walk. I am not inspired to hike. Essentially I am in neutral. Some of this I can blame on my schedule and mourning brother's death. I could state I am busy as is everyone I know. Not all these factors come into play for a global malaise. I just am spent. I taught a class entitled Taking on Ableism 24/7. I got riled up over this class. I loved the students in my class. My excitement quickly dissipated into a lack of action and writing. I feel as though I am stuck in quick sand and not able to initiate action. The most obvious result of my stagnation is an unacceptable lack of posts. I am after all the self professed bad cripple. Bad cripples are active people. We are strong and unafraid to buck the tide. We assert ourselves and take positions that are unpopular. I still do this but I am feeling very much alone, isolated, and apart from the sea of humanity that ebbs and flows like the tide. I am the rock far off in the distance. An unyielding rock, a danger to others as I am too ornery to acquiesce. This I suspect is my problem. It is why I printed and have carried around a post that perfectly articulated why I am unhappy and not inspired. Link:http://thoughtsnax.com/2015/03/13/dignify-this/
I'm done. I'm done being polite. I'm done shutting up about good liberals who seem to get every sort of liberal rights and civil liberties except the equality of rights, respect, and dignity of our brothers and sisters with disabilities. I'm done with disability rights as a "when get around to it" right. I'm done with people who are willing to use respectful terminology except--big sigh--avoiding using the word "retard" as just one step too far forward thought control. And I'm done with "civil rights" law firms in inaccessible offices and "civil rights" lawyers who don't hire interpreters. I'm done.
I too am done. I have no interest in hearing a long story about why a building is not accessible that was constructed in the post ADA era. I have no interest in committees that are formed to address the lack of access at any given university campus. I am weary of ADA lawsuits that take over a decade to resolve. I am sick of hearing people tell me we never thought about an access issues. I do not want to hear I am the first speaker we ever had that had a disability and refused to speak at a small desk next to an impressive speakers podium. I do not want to be harassed when I go out my door. I want to be able to go to the bike shop, get my bike tuned up for the spring and not be called inspirational by people I never met and have not seen me ride. I want to get in and out of my car and not be stared at. Even more basic, I would actually like to be able to park in handicapped parking without driving around waiting for a space to be open or not cluttered with shopping carts making it impossible to park. In short, I have no desire to interact with bipedal people our physical environment is designed for. So let me be even shorter and more direct to those that accost me or other people with a disability on a regular basis regardless of whether we are being praised as being exceptional or accused of being the anti Christ. Fuck you. How is that for direct?
There can be no miscommunication here. Disability rights and civil rights are one in the same. I have no interest in hearing a long story about access. I want a yes or no. I will not engage in a discussion about the law or silently accept ignorant comments about how a given building is grand fathered in and exempt from the ADA. I do not want to hear Compassion and Choices broadcast how much they care about vulnerable others and yet actively push for assisted suicide legislation. All the protections under the law cannot protect the elderly, disabled and terminally ill. I do not want to talk to members of the Green Party and have neo liberals tell me they support assisted suicide legislation and disability rights. Sorry, but the logic is deeply flawed. And forget the ACLU--you know that liberal organization of lawyers devoted to nondiscrimination. I am no lawyer but I find it fascinating and disheartening that the ACLU supports assisted suicide legislation or at best cannot wrap their heads around the fact people with a disability are discriminated against every time they try to access health care.
My life matters. I love my life. I love teaching. I love the sunrise every morning. I value my life. I accept this as a given. Am I having a hard time at the present? You bet I am. But that does not mean something as simple as "Harvey Day" makes me happy. For those who do not follow baseball Harvey Day is when the dynamic pitcher for the Mets takes to the mound. I take great pride in the many students I have who are about to graduate from Syracuse and will be giving presentations about their final Capstone projects in the Hall of Languages--my favorite building on campus. Do others see me in this light? Not a chance. I am a failure with a stigmatized identity. This gross misconception shocks me. The utter lack of social progress in terms of disability rights 25 years post ADA leads me to shale my head on a daily basis. I refuse to engage in banter with others who think they support disability rights under the guise of non disabled privilege. My life is radically different simply because I cannot walk. Such a minor thing it is to be bipedal; but not to those that walk. Walking is required to be social viable and is key to being valued. The irony to me is there are plenty of bipedal people who are far more disabled than I am but I digress.
The good news is I have a cure for my my malaise. I am going on a long road trip. When experiencing a deep slump I get in the car. Road trip! This road trip with my son is a doozy. We are driving to Wyoming. My son got a job as a seasonal worker in Grand Teton National Park. As he said, "Dad, who cares what I am do this summer. I work 40 hours a week and can camp every weekend in one of the most beautiful national parks in the nation". This logic is sound. It makes me think that growing up with a father who is paralyzed presented manageable social stigma and enabled a typical child to learn some real life lessons. I wish I knew how to impart the lessons he learned to others. Bigoted others who even in my middle age years harass me daily.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Easter, Death and my Brother James Peace
My brother James Peace died this week. My shoulders hurt. My eyes are sore. My heart broken. The mourning has begun and must run its course. I have tried to write something and quickly stop as my eyes floor with tears. Today is no different. I have written and spoken a lot about how great my parents were when I was a sick kid. I have also written a lot about the care I received as a kid. What I have not been so open about for reasons I cannot decipher is how my brother too cared for me. He had an innate ability to know what I wanted. Silence, a long middle of the night discussion on the meaning of life or cut rough shod over my living conditions. What he did the most though was be a humane presence. He showed up to see me at 8AM, noon, 2AM, 1PM--I typically had no idea when he would show up or how long he would stay. He knew what to bring. News papers, flowers, or a beer. What I knew and what I always looked forward to was his smile. A giant shit eating grin was often on his face. In the summer he often wore a baseball cap. This is the brother I loved. He was a good man and will be missed more than he imagined.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Diane Rehm and the New York Times are a Problem
On March 14 the New York Times editorial board published "Offering a Choice to the Terminally Ill". Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/offering-a-choice-to-the-terminally-ill.html?_r=0 As expected, the NYT editorial board is in favor of assisted suicide legislation and staunchly supports Diane Rehm and the advocacy group Compassion and Choices (once known as the Hemlock Society). The NYT editorial is boiler plate pro assisted suicide rhetoric. The editorial could have been written by any news agency and this is not just disappointing but indicative of the way Compassion and Choices has dominated the discourse associated with the end of life. Two things struck me reading the NYT editorial. First, the adoption of Compassion and Choices phrases. The NYT did not refer to assisted suicide legislation but rather "so-called aid in dying bills". Such proposed legislation was described as "a humane option". Moreover, the NYT argues law makers should consider "how successfully and responsibly the law has been carried out in Oregon". Ignored was the experience of Randy Stoup and many others. Stoup was an uninsured Oregon resident unable to pay for chemotherapy. The Oregon state health plan would not cover chemotherapy but would pay the cost of physician assisted suicide. Second, and most problematic, is the NYT adoption of Compassion and Choices rhetoric. In an effort to undermine opponents of assisted suicide as being cold and uncaring the NYT noted Rehm's terminally ill husband "only option for ending the suffering was to stop eating and drinking. Physicians in most states, including Maryland, where he lived, are barred from helping terminally ill patients who want to die in a dignified way". The key here is how does one define "dignified". And more to the point, a patient, any patient in fact, can accept or refuse treatment. If one wants to die with "dignity" however it is perceived a patient can already do that by directing their own health care. I suggest all people read various forms of the Patient Bill of Rights. People have the right to fair medical treatment and the guarantee of autonomy over their health care. The NYT emotional ploy that "Health care providers in states where assisted suicide is illegal face wrenching choices when dying patients ask them for help" is grossly misleading. Health care providers are specifically tasked to respect and follow the autonomous decisions patients make. Those choices include tacitly hastening the end of life if a person chooses. A person with cancer can choose to not receive life extending chemotherapy for instance. A person can choose to not receive life sustaining anti-biotics. Examples abound when one factors in serious illness, disability and advanced age.
What bothered me the most about the NYT editorial was whole sale acceptance of a Compassion and Choices framework about the end of life that defies logic and distorts the politics associated with assisted suicide legislation. According to the NYT, "Ms. Rehms said she and her husband had long ago agreed they would help each other die if either was in growing distress from a terminal illness. Her inability to help him die humanely is a situation no spouse should have to face". I am stunned the NYT would stoop this low and be so obviously manipulative. What is over looked is Diane Rehm's long standing support for assisted suicide and association with Compassion and Choices. To suggest that Diane Rehm is a paragon of virtue and neutral observer is wildly wrong. Rehm is the public voice of NPR, her radio show is nationally broadcast, she has an estimated 2.6 million listeners and is closely associated with Compassion and Choices that advocates for VSED (voluntary suspension of eating and drinking), the method of death for her husband. Rehm has also been subject of criticism from the NPR's ombudsman who pointed out Rehm has been attending fund raising dinners for Compassion and Choices and has likely raised millions of dollars for the organization. Diane Rehm is far from objective. The same can be said about me. I am a member of Not Dead Yet, a grass roots organization opposed to assisted suicide (I am also on the Not Dead Yet Board). The difference between Rehms and myself is I am above board about my affiliation and bias. Before I give a talk that might remotely relate to assisted suicide I explicitly state my opposition to assisted suicide legislation and bias. To the best of my knowledge Rehms is not transparent in her bias. Elizabeth Jensen was quoted in the Washington Post that in her view "Rehm's participation as a celebrity guest of sorts at fundraising dinners for an organization that does extensive political lobbying, as compelling as her personal story is and as careful as she is being, is a step too far for someone associated with NPR." Link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2015/02/25/388723154/diane-rehm-personal-politics-and-the-ethical-reach-of-npr Rehm's support of assisted suicide has been evident for decades. What is new as I perceive it is her move to become a key figure in advocating for assisted suicide as well as a leading fundraiser. Rehms efforts are not exactly a secret: the Washington Post featured an article about Rehm entitled "NPR Host Diane Rehm Emerges as Key Voice in the Right to Die Debate." Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/npr-host-diane-rehm-emerges-as-a-key-force-in-the-right-to-die-debate/2015/02/14/12b72230-ad50-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html In the Washington Post story Rehm's noted she was well aware she was a journalist and as such she must be careful. "As strongly as I feel, I don't want to use the program to proselytize my feelings. But I do want to have more discussions about it because I feel its so important". I agree assisted suicide and more generally end of life issues need to be discussed. I do not think, however, Rehms, given her strong support of assisted suicide can do her job as as an unbiased journalist. When the subject is discussed on her radio show her bias is obvious. Opponents to assisted suicide do appear on her radio show but are given short shrift at best.
In response to criticism, not mentioned in the NYT editorial, Rehm has agreed to scale back her efforts in what Michael Rosenwald described as the "right to die debate". Exactly what does this scaling back involve? In my opinion not much. According to Rosenwald, Rehms will appear at two more sold out fund raisers. Rehm is not modifying her words. Rehms was also quoted recently as stating assisted suicide (my words) "should be a a right for me and should have been a right for my husband". Such a declarative statement is not what I would expect to ever hear from a supposedly unbiased journalist.
Rehms is in my estimation a fierce advocate for assisted suicide and is attempting to build on the wildly successful Compassion and Choices Brittany Maynard public relations campaign launched last year (Maynard's husband does fundraising for Compassion and Choices as well). As a Compassion and Choices advocate Rehms is aware of the importance of language I already referred to as rhetoric. Rehms refers to the right to die debate rather than assisted suicide. Rehms never uses the word suicide because as the Washington Post noted "Public opinion on the issue depends on how it is described, according to Gallup, which has found strong support for doctors helping patients end their lives by some painless means but a far slimmer majority favor assisting the patient to commit suicide. Not surprisingly, groups such as Compassion and Choices, studiously avoid using the word suicide." Link: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/02/15/nonpartisan-public-radio-npr-star-diane-rehm-moonlighting-right-die
Why has Rehms views changed to include such strident support of assisted suicide legislation? Tim Graham at Newsbusters baldly stated" "Rehm is mad her husband died when she was not present. It was not then just his right to die, but her preference that he die exactly when she wanted it. She spent the night with him, and in the morning she went home for a shower. Then she received the call--come fast, he's slipping away. She missed his death by 20 minutes. She is still angry about that. If he could have planned his death, she and his family would have been there. Thats all I keep thinking about, she said. Why can't we make this more peaceful and humane. In a long interview in her office Rehm asserted I feel the way that John had to die was totally inexcusable. It was not right. She also said Kevorkian was before his time. He was too early. The country wasn't ready. Link: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/02/15/nonpartisan-public-radio-npr-star-diane-rehm-moonlighting-right-die
I keep thinking of two words--peaceful and humane. All humans should die this way--at peace and in a humane way. Assisted suicide is not the answer. Indeed, it is an extreme legislative initiative for a social problem. It reminds me of the Ashley Treatment controversy. Doctors in surgically altering Ashley X resorted to an extreme medical solution for a social problem. My suggestion is not exciting nor will it raise money like Rehms or incite angry and heated debate. Why don't we enter into a national discussion about end of life issues. Better yet, I implore people to discuss end of life issues with their family, siblings, spouse and loved ones. If we as a society do this I would suggest many would die at peace in a manner of their choosing.
What bothered me the most about the NYT editorial was whole sale acceptance of a Compassion and Choices framework about the end of life that defies logic and distorts the politics associated with assisted suicide legislation. According to the NYT, "Ms. Rehms said she and her husband had long ago agreed they would help each other die if either was in growing distress from a terminal illness. Her inability to help him die humanely is a situation no spouse should have to face". I am stunned the NYT would stoop this low and be so obviously manipulative. What is over looked is Diane Rehm's long standing support for assisted suicide and association with Compassion and Choices. To suggest that Diane Rehm is a paragon of virtue and neutral observer is wildly wrong. Rehm is the public voice of NPR, her radio show is nationally broadcast, she has an estimated 2.6 million listeners and is closely associated with Compassion and Choices that advocates for VSED (voluntary suspension of eating and drinking), the method of death for her husband. Rehm has also been subject of criticism from the NPR's ombudsman who pointed out Rehm has been attending fund raising dinners for Compassion and Choices and has likely raised millions of dollars for the organization. Diane Rehm is far from objective. The same can be said about me. I am a member of Not Dead Yet, a grass roots organization opposed to assisted suicide (I am also on the Not Dead Yet Board). The difference between Rehms and myself is I am above board about my affiliation and bias. Before I give a talk that might remotely relate to assisted suicide I explicitly state my opposition to assisted suicide legislation and bias. To the best of my knowledge Rehms is not transparent in her bias. Elizabeth Jensen was quoted in the Washington Post that in her view "Rehm's participation as a celebrity guest of sorts at fundraising dinners for an organization that does extensive political lobbying, as compelling as her personal story is and as careful as she is being, is a step too far for someone associated with NPR." Link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2015/02/25/388723154/diane-rehm-personal-politics-and-the-ethical-reach-of-npr Rehm's support of assisted suicide has been evident for decades. What is new as I perceive it is her move to become a key figure in advocating for assisted suicide as well as a leading fundraiser. Rehms efforts are not exactly a secret: the Washington Post featured an article about Rehm entitled "NPR Host Diane Rehm Emerges as Key Voice in the Right to Die Debate." Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/npr-host-diane-rehm-emerges-as-a-key-force-in-the-right-to-die-debate/2015/02/14/12b72230-ad50-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html In the Washington Post story Rehm's noted she was well aware she was a journalist and as such she must be careful. "As strongly as I feel, I don't want to use the program to proselytize my feelings. But I do want to have more discussions about it because I feel its so important". I agree assisted suicide and more generally end of life issues need to be discussed. I do not think, however, Rehms, given her strong support of assisted suicide can do her job as as an unbiased journalist. When the subject is discussed on her radio show her bias is obvious. Opponents to assisted suicide do appear on her radio show but are given short shrift at best.
In response to criticism, not mentioned in the NYT editorial, Rehm has agreed to scale back her efforts in what Michael Rosenwald described as the "right to die debate". Exactly what does this scaling back involve? In my opinion not much. According to Rosenwald, Rehms will appear at two more sold out fund raisers. Rehm is not modifying her words. Rehms was also quoted recently as stating assisted suicide (my words) "should be a a right for me and should have been a right for my husband". Such a declarative statement is not what I would expect to ever hear from a supposedly unbiased journalist.
Rehms is in my estimation a fierce advocate for assisted suicide and is attempting to build on the wildly successful Compassion and Choices Brittany Maynard public relations campaign launched last year (Maynard's husband does fundraising for Compassion and Choices as well). As a Compassion and Choices advocate Rehms is aware of the importance of language I already referred to as rhetoric. Rehms refers to the right to die debate rather than assisted suicide. Rehms never uses the word suicide because as the Washington Post noted "Public opinion on the issue depends on how it is described, according to Gallup, which has found strong support for doctors helping patients end their lives by some painless means but a far slimmer majority favor assisting the patient to commit suicide. Not surprisingly, groups such as Compassion and Choices, studiously avoid using the word suicide." Link: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/02/15/nonpartisan-public-radio-npr-star-diane-rehm-moonlighting-right-die
Why has Rehms views changed to include such strident support of assisted suicide legislation? Tim Graham at Newsbusters baldly stated" "Rehm is mad her husband died when she was not present. It was not then just his right to die, but her preference that he die exactly when she wanted it. She spent the night with him, and in the morning she went home for a shower. Then she received the call--come fast, he's slipping away. She missed his death by 20 minutes. She is still angry about that. If he could have planned his death, she and his family would have been there. Thats all I keep thinking about, she said. Why can't we make this more peaceful and humane. In a long interview in her office Rehm asserted I feel the way that John had to die was totally inexcusable. It was not right. She also said Kevorkian was before his time. He was too early. The country wasn't ready. Link: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/02/15/nonpartisan-public-radio-npr-star-diane-rehm-moonlighting-right-die
I keep thinking of two words--peaceful and humane. All humans should die this way--at peace and in a humane way. Assisted suicide is not the answer. Indeed, it is an extreme legislative initiative for a social problem. It reminds me of the Ashley Treatment controversy. Doctors in surgically altering Ashley X resorted to an extreme medical solution for a social problem. My suggestion is not exciting nor will it raise money like Rehms or incite angry and heated debate. Why don't we enter into a national discussion about end of life issues. Better yet, I implore people to discuss end of life issues with their family, siblings, spouse and loved ones. If we as a society do this I would suggest many would die at peace in a manner of their choosing.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Parenting and the ADA
I just wrote a paper about raising my son. I had great fun writing this essay as I was flooded with warm memories and the baseless prejudice I encountered. In short the essay discusses how my son and the ADA came of age. The essay appeared in the Houston Law Review and is in part a celebration of the ADA.
Below is the opening paragraph and link to my full essay.
Link: http://www.houstonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Peace-Parenting-and-Disability_FINAL.pdf
Below is the opening paragraph and link to my full essay.
PARENTING AND DISABILITY:
THE FINAL FRONTIER
William J. Peace
My life was transformed on July 26, 1990. I sat in front of a television and became teary eyed as I watched President Bush sign the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).1 He declared that the ADA was the beginning of “a bright new era of equality, independence, and freedom” for the then estimated 43 million people in the United States living with a disability.2 I was overjoyed. I believed that the ADA would end discrimination against people with disabilities. After forty years of progressive legislation designed to empower people with disabilities, disability rights law had reached its zenith. Millions of people with disabilities were not going to be barred from employment opportunities. The ADA would ensure that accessing mass transportation would be easy and accessible housing was going to become commonplace. There was no question the ADA was going to revolutionize my life and the lives of countless others. I was an American and now shared the same civil rights as those Americans without a disability took for granted. I was a true believer.
William J. Peace
My life was transformed on July 26, 1990. I sat in front of a television and became teary eyed as I watched President Bush sign the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).1 He declared that the ADA was the beginning of “a bright new era of equality, independence, and freedom” for the then estimated 43 million people in the United States living with a disability.2 I was overjoyed. I believed that the ADA would end discrimination against people with disabilities. After forty years of progressive legislation designed to empower people with disabilities, disability rights law had reached its zenith. Millions of people with disabilities were not going to be barred from employment opportunities. The ADA would ensure that accessing mass transportation would be easy and accessible housing was going to become commonplace. There was no question the ADA was going to revolutionize my life and the lives of countless others. I was an American and now shared the same civil rights as those Americans without a disability took for granted. I was a true believer.
Link: http://www.houstonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Peace-Parenting-and-Disability_FINAL.pdf
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
The Walking Dead and Assisted Suicide at Cripping the Con
My talk at Syracuse April 9, 2014.
The most fun I ever had presenting a paper.
Disability Cultural Center at Syracuse is outstanding.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Oliver Sacks and the Process of Dying at the End of Life
Oliver Sacks is dying. I am saddened and yet at the same time I am happy. A voice of reason has weighed in on the end of life. Most readers have heard of Sacks. He is a widely respected and his books not only resonate with the public but see very well. Among the books he wrote that have I have enjoyed include a A Leg to Stand On, and Awakenings. A few days ago Sacks wrote that he was going to die in the near future. His short essay has been reproduced and shared world wide. When I read it I was deeply touched because he was not writing about his impending death but how he planned to live. He eloquently wrote the following:
A month ago, I felt that I was in good health, even robust health. At 81, I still swim a mile a day. But my luck has run out—a few weeks ago I learned that I have multiple metastases in the liver. Nine years ago it was discovered that I had a rare tumor of the eye, an ocular melanoma. Although the radiation and lasering to remove the tumor ultimately left me blind in that eye, only in very rare cases do such tumors metastasize. I am among the unlucky 2 percent”.
Sacks words are a counterpoint to the typical end of life story reported in the media. Praise has been heaped upon him for good reason. Sacks put neuroscience on the map for the general public. Many of the things he wrote about I witnessed. I spent a decade in and out of the hospital and I saw a myriad of devastating neurological conditions on wards of 16 morbidly sick children. The way parents and their children faced adversity and mortality is something deeply etched in my brain. After reading Sacks poignant words originally published in the New York Times I hope the mass media will engage Sacks’ approach to his death. I doubt this will happen. He is not the sort of person an organization such as Compassion and Choices embraces. There is no fever pitch emotion or tear jerking images. There is no talk of death with dignity. There is no talk about the right to die. All Sacks focused on was life.
What I found particularly fascinating was Sacks quoting David Hume, who upon learning he was mortally ill, wrote a brief autobiography. Like Hume, Sacks has chosen to embrace life with the knowledge his life will end shortly. Sacks plans to finish more than one book manuscript and enjoy life. Sacks wrote “It is up to me now to choose how to live out the months that remain to me”. What struck me the most in recent days was Hume’s observation that “It is difficult to be more detached from life than I am at present”. Oh my do I get this. I have lived with a similar detachment with my body and American society for nearly 40 years. Paralysis often precludes routine social interaction. While I forcefully reject the stigma and isolation associated with disability I am detached in multiple ways. If I injure my leg I do not worry about “my leg”. I worry about “the leg” as though it is an inanimate object. This sort of bodily detachment is not unusual among paralyzed people. Far more problematic is the social detachment I often feel. There are days I cannot leave my home. I cannot deal with rude people or do gooders who insist on “helping” me. I rarely permit myself to remain at home. Frankly, I will not give the bipedal bigots that surround me the satisfaction of segregating me from society. Screw them! I am a human being. I have civil rights.
Facing ones mortality and living with a disability share one thing in common: it offers a person a unique perspective. Sacks wrote: I feel intensely alive, and I want and hope in the time that remains to deepen my friendships, to say farewell to those I love, to write more, to travel if I have the strength, to achieve new levels of understanding and insight. This will involve audacity, clarity, and plain speaking; trying to straighten my accounts with the world. But there there will be time, too, for some fun (and even silliness, as well)”.
I find Sacks words meaningful and in part undermines the highly organized effort to pass assisted suicide legislation. We are all going to die and humans will in one way or another need to process death. In so doing one must take a hard look at their mortality and life. Too many want to avoid this sort of self reflection. It is far easier to not think, rail against how unfair life can be, and become a martyr dedicated to a cause (think Brittany Maynard). Sacks is radically different for he has embraced life and the process has provided “a sudden clear focus and perspective”. This is what those that advocate for assisted suicide legislation try to obscure and mislead in a single minded way. There is no cheating the grim reaper. There is no cutting class. There is no absenteeism. Death will take us all and as Sacks notes the end of life is a unique experience. This sober clear headed approach to end of life does not sell well. Instead, advocates crow about autonomy, the right to die and even have a slogan: “My Life. My Choice. My death”. That is a lot of my. My my my my like a two year old with a temper tantrum. Sacks is far too smart to buy into this sort of simplistic reductionism.
I struggle to understand why so many are willing and eager to make assisted suicide legal. The rhetoric on the part of those that advocate for so called death with dignity laws is over the top. I for one prefer to contextualize end of life issues. Rational thought is of paramount importance. We get to die once and only once. I for one want to die well. This can be accomplished but it takes work. It requires one to talk about death and end of life issues. This is the sort of discussion few people have. I have had these sort of discussions and they are not fun. They can and often are emotionally painful. Yet I know such discussions must be had. Sacks words remind of this in a way that is enlightening. It is my hope Sacks will get the most of the last months, weeks or days of his life. What he wrote made me think how wonderful the arc of life is. We are born utterly dependent on our parents. Some people die utterly dependent upon others. The range at the end of life is as diverse as life itself. While not all states of life are remembered fondly it is my opinion the end of life is a final stage we all will experience. assisted suicide advocates fear this last stage of life. I will remain forever puzzled why such advocates want to talk about nothing more than death. Let’s talk about life and the wonders, good and bad. Lets think about lives that are worth living. So as I thought about Sacks words I had this image in my head—typical elderly white male, grey hair, suit and tie. Distinguished in a word. As I created this image I googled Sacks and images. Oh I had a great laugh at my own expense. I found the photograph of Sacks below circa 1961 riding a motorcycle. This is how I will remember Sacks. A bad ass researcher on a motorcycle.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Travel: An Epilog
An epilog of sorts written a few days ago as I flew home from Chicago.
The hotel room I stayed in downtown Chicago was renovated a year ago. This is typically good news. Most but not all new hotels offer excellent access. The key word in the previous sentence is most. The hotel room I stayed at was an excellent example of good design and the obliviousness on the part of people in the travel industry who are supposed to create an ADA compliant room.
The Good.
The room was large and I could easily turn around in my wheelchair. The bed and desk were a good height. The mini fridge was easily accessible. The bathroom door was wide and had a pocket door. The room was spotlessly clean. The bed was excellent as were the linens. The television was a flat screen and quite large. The television had various ports so one could link up with a computer or gaming platform. The lighting was excellent. The closet had a low clothes rod that was easy to reach. A great feature was the lights under the bed that illuminated the floor so a person such as myself could see my feet in the darkness as I transferred. This is a great idea and seems to becoming more popular in the hotel industry.
Reality Versus Reservations.
I requested and confirmed a room with a roll in shower and king bed. I printed out this information. Upon arrival it was clear no such room existed. All rooms with a roll in shower have two queen beds. This is a rampant problem in recent years. Virtually all hotel chains link a room with a king bed and a tub style bathroom. For me this presents a potentially tough transfer in and out of a tub. Given the fact the room requested does not exist the manager came out to help the flustered desk clerk. The manager subsequently escorted me to the room and it was fine. I had no doubt I could handle the tub and required transfer.
The Bad.
I am glad the manager came up to the room with me. Oh, my this is ever so common. The shower head was in the highest location possible and there was no way I could lower it. The towels were also far to high to reach. The thermostat was too high to reach. The iron in the closet was too high to reach (and yes, I can iron. I do so poorly). The light switches above the bed were too high to reach.
Some of the above sounds petty. And frankly it is. I am aware of the privilege involved. It was wonderful to have had the opportunity to stay downtown a mere three blocks from Northwestern where I spoke. What gets me is the time I consistently lose and lack of attention to detail when it comes to wheelchair access. Should not all guests feel welcomed? This is the industry standard. It is hard to enjoy travel and the check in process when small issues abound that take time to resolve. What if the manager did not escort me to the room. I would have to call down stairs and wait for an employee to lower the shower head, towels, iron, and remove a desk chair. In terms of the lights and thermostat I am just out of luck. The net result is I think no one cares. Access exists not because my existence is valued but rather it is required by law.
Ignorance abounds.
The Kicker
As usual at JFK, the staff trained, and I use that word loosely, was totally unfamiliar with an aisle chair and had no clue how to to transfer me or how to use the straps that are supposed to secure me in my heat. Worse, they refused to listen to me and as a result dragged my foot on the floor. I now have a minor abrasion for a souvenir.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)