I have tried, and given up, trying to get our two NZ on Air funded disability programmes (Attitude and One In Five) to do a comparison and/or a "walk a mile in my shoes" programme on tetraplegia under ACC compared with tetraplegia under MOH.
Attitude avoids politics and controversy. It didn't used to but ....
Attitude avoids politics and controversy. It didn’t used to but ….
Thou shall not bite the hand that feeds you?
It didn’t used to
Really? I’ve never seen them cover it.
Nothing hugely controversial but I do recall an effort on improving disability parking provision, that's what I was thinking of. I'm in two minds about Attitude, on the one hand it does get some stories told and shows aspects of life with a disability that Joe public doesn't usually notice, but on the other there are so many opportunities it chooses not to take. Such a shame, but it's most probably a survival issue.
I suspect their brief is to present disability in a good light….positive and happy clappy inspirational (although there’s nothing wrong with inspirational…
stuff to show that all is well in the disability sector. That just by being positive, and putting in the effort, good will rain down upon us.
I kind of get that with Attitude…they present as slick and sophisticated visually…with wheelchair using presenters sitting on couches in the studio and all that…and I suppose it would be incongruous if they then did a hard hitting piece about shit care from contracted providers…you know, fifteen year olds being left to drown in the bath, etc.
I am really disappointed with One In Five.
Natrad did some really good work on the family carers case and tied that nicely with the reports of hideous torture and abuse at Parklands and Te Roopu Taurima. They did some very in depth work on the terrible case from Nelson….
highlighting the shocking dodgeing by the DHB…that compounded the horror of the abuse that the young man was subjected to.
Then they air One in Five….week after week of what is becoming quite tedious pap.
And yet Peter and I still listen to it, ( ardent Natrad listeners we are when on the road) forever hopeful that one day…..
I was just telling my partner what you said and he agreed. He also said that if there was a magic cure and I could walk tomorrow, he reckons I would take it... the idea frightens me, but who knows.
Has Hollywood ever made a movie where an ableist jerk is left crippled in an accident, and is utterly ill-equipped to deal with the world he dumped upon? If not, it'd be the perfect Sundance/Cannes pitch.
Has Hollywood ever made a movie where an ableist jerk is left crippled in an accident, and is utterly ill-equipped to deal with the world he dumped upon? If not, it’d be the perfect Sundance/Cannes pitch.
One movie comes to mind.
Not disability per se, but puts the shoe on the other foot with reasonable success.
I teach transportation practitioners about design of street environments for walking, and that includes discussion about consideration of universal access/mobility issues (e.g. kerb ramps, tactile pavement markings). While I can present the theory about how to provide for this, I don't think they fully get it until we have a session where they spend about 90 minutes exploring the street environment using wheelchairs, blind-vision goggles, etc (see http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/rss/news/?feed=news&articleId=551 for more info). I know from my own experience that my perspective on how "good" a street is was changed after I undertook this training - I now see the various little obstacles that the average able-bodied person just blithely negotiates without thought. So there are circumstances where such "mile in my shoes" training can be of great benefit.
I hope they use those manual wheelchairs with the horrible little front wheels that get caught in every crack in the pavement and threaten to tip the occupant out.
bonus points for crossing a railway
Having a bit of a chuckle at this Hilary.
Peter has those small caster wheels on the front of his manual chair, and oh, how they will find any and all irregularities in the pavement surface.
Peter had two accidental tip outs....here at home, simply rolling over a slight crack in the concrete. Gets a bit ugly. We have broken those casters hitting supposedly flush manhole covers in town. And don't get Peter started on pavement camber. He has declared Kaitaia main street as the most wheelchair friendly...dead level, but a bummer in the rain unfortunately!
@ Glen Koorey...Hilary makes a very good point about the type of wheel chair. Power chairs and mobility scooters are very popular and can increase independance....but there are a number of die hards who prefer a manual chair...and designers might need to be aware that they are a completely different beast. And while we understand how useful to the vision impaired those raised yellow bumpy pimply areas at pedestrian crossings are...they can be diabolical on those little wheels.
But...I usually have to push Peter across crossings as the kerbs are too steep for him to manage, and he simply can't push fast enough.
All in all, while it is appreciated that designers make the effort to 'walk a mile', nothing can really take the place of lived experience....and there are plenty of folk with a multitude of disabilities who are perfectly capable of sitting down with designers and engineers and making their needs known.
If only the designers and engineers were able to recognise what they don't know and ask for input- from a diverse range of likely users, not a narrow group. I'm getting really worried about the advisory groups and policy makers because they probably think they've taken appropriate steps (language!) by consulting with a narrow group, often of very able disabled. Complex and high needs people are routinely overlooked and it is the group most desperately in need of appropriate access and resources.
Those tactile strips for the blind are a pain in the backside for manual wheelchair users, as are the lovely up and down slopes for every driveway on residential streets, you'd think we could come up with better systems for everyone. Problem is the problem is not recognised.
they probably think they’ve taken appropriate steps (language!) by consulting with a narrow group, often of very able disabled.
In our 'before Bus' days, when journeys far from home necessitated staying in motels and the like, we would scour the accommodation guides for the 'wheely symbol', denoting the fact that the particular establishment had met the access standard set by the "XYZ Trust".
We rapidly learned that the 'wheely symbol' means little, and that by 'wheelchair access' they mean that Whoesit Dosit from the XYZ trust found it acceptable.
Then you learn that Whoesit Dosit can actually stand, and transfer themselves onto the toilet or into the shower...and had not taken into consideration the needs of those disabled who were less able.
Off course, travelling in the Bus has its own challenges and although we are self contained with regards to ablutions, and we more often than not freedom camp, designated camping grounds can leave much to be desired.
And the number of Department of Conservation camps that claim wheechair access when only token efforts have been made....and when we work out our own solutions to access issues some petty little official strides up and say's "oh no!!! you can't do that!".
We have a long way to go.
yup, we stayed in a Tauranga motel this year, checked it was accessible prior, ( as you really have to do), found it wasn't really. Very steep short portable ramp put in place for the occasion but only workable with an able bodied pusher and difficult even then. Bathroom was fine, and that's what the motelier was thinking about, not whether you could actually get in and out of the room unaided. Polite but clear feedback provided but what's the betting if we actually returned, that nothing has changed?
I live in a street literally two corners from a little shopping centre, and the irony is that it's quicker and safer for me to take the time to put my wheelchair on my hoist and drive there than to push my chair. I have to cross the road sooner or later to get there, and while my driveway is manageable to move onto the road other driveways/curbs aren't. The city centre is a lot better than it used to be, and yes I find the bumps at pedestrian crossings annoying, but also realise that in order to be inclusive things like this need to be done. My biggest gripe is the council are so nice in putting mobility parks everywhere, but they're more often than not the same width as a regular car park. Someone's not following the regulations. The council was very obliging though, when my dad approached them to put in an extra curb outside the parking building I have to park in to get to work, and smooth out one on the opposite side of the road. They also fixed the rampway at the parking building to make it more wheelchair friendly. It'll never be perfect for everyone, but unless it's pointed out to people it's not going to change.
I got given a book some years ago by a friend written by Alexia Pickering with her assessment of "accessible" accommodation. While very out of date, and an updated edition never published (to my knowledge) We use it time and time again, and have found it very accurate and useful. Again 'Accessible accommodation' is in the eye of the beholder, but unless feedback is given they don't know what they should change.
We provided clear and polite feedback, both verbally and in writing.
The bump strips for the blind can often be placed so that it's still possible to push a manual chair without too much difficulty. Too often they are not. Both sets of needs can usually be accommodated if the designers know enough about the needs of the users. The point I'm trying to make is that they don't.
My biggest gripe is the council are so nice in putting mobility parks everywhere, but they’re more often than not the same width as a regular car park.
Or.....the carpark is wide enough to get into your chair.....but, there is no ramp up to the footpath without having to beetle behind ten parked cars.....dreading reversing lights coming on.
You know what would be REALLY handy?
Some local organisation who one could approach with a particular issue, who could liase with the offending council/business. Explain problem, go have a look, agree that it needs fixing....and fix it....now.
Shouldn't need a committee meeting, shouldn't need the bureaucracy to process it...just get on with it.
For instance....those yellow pimply 'tactile strips'. Portable concrete grinder, can of yellow paint....done.
Or…..the carpark is wide enough to get into your chair…..but, there is no ramp up to the footpath without having to beetle behind ten parked cars…..dreading reversing lights coming on.
Our supermarket was renovated some time ago, and someone put in concrete ramp where the mobility parks are. It got taken away when the renovations were done so I emailed the store owner saying it was a brilliant addition and much safer than wheeling behind cars where you're possibly not seen. His reply? Not going to put it back 'lots of people have to walk behind cars'. Supermarket now under new management and the ramp is back. Great for trolleys, even better for a wheelchair :)
It is gobsmacking that people using wheelchairs are routinely asked about their sex lives
I have recently changed agency and went through their service plan questionnaire with one of their staff members. One question related to sexuality and sexual needs. I asked if we really needed to go there and he said he ‘had to ask the question’. It is totally irrelevant to my service plan and what my support worker has to do for me every morning. My service plan has come back with that section answered in this way “manages sexuality and sexual needs independently” I was stunned and have asked a coordinator to explain why this needs to be there, and also to remove it. Both requests have been ignored. Even if I was to get a response I didn’t totally agree with, it would be something.
asked a coordinator to explain why this needs to be there, and also to remove it. Both requests have been ignored.
NO No NO!
Totally unacceptable, and breaches your rights under the Code.http://www.hdc.org.nz/the-act--code/the-code-of-rights/the-code-(full)
1) Every consumer has the right to be treated with respect.
2) Every consumer has the right to have his or her privacy respected.
Plus sheer human decency and it's none of his damned business.
The only times Peter has encountered this question is quite legitimately as part of the three yearly WOF check from the Outreach Team at the Auckland Spinal Unit.
This is largely a medical review, and such a line of questioning is quite appropriate. HOWEVER...on the form, when it is printed up and sent out to all and sundry...that question is discretely "discussed in private with Dr So and So". End of story, as it should be.
Christine...this is wrong. I know complaining is the last thing we want to do...but you may want to consider contacting your local advocate...http://advocacy.hdc.org.nz/find-an-advocate.aspx Keep trying...the advocates are very busy....
This is just SO wrong.
He wasn't being nosey. Just felt obliged to ask a question that was on the form. Appropriate response would have been N/A.
I love how these Access posts sometimes go on for months. What a great Access Archive (thanks again Russell). However, also shows that problems raised are often not addressed.
Just an update that I managed to get my service plan changed. The sexuality question is there so they can find out about transgender clients according to the agrncy person i spoke to. This section has been removed on my service plan.