Betty, that's fine, I don't mind this being public. I think you and I are
coming at this from two opposite poles.
I am all for the freedom to make your own decisions. No question or
argument with that. However, I feel when one attempts to take his or her
own life and endangers others in the process, the rights of society take
precedent over that of the individual. The issue was not whether the
person in question had the right to say no to leaving her house but whether
she had the right to endanger herself and others. That's it. nothing else.
That's when, in my opinion, society has a right to step in and say,
"something needs to be done."
I drive my own car (have done so since I was 16), and can tell you if
someone pulled such a trick on me, I'd never let them in my car again, and
would insist they see a doctor for help. And I know all of my friends would
do the same. We are responsible adults, and even we disabled adults have a
responsibility to society to act responsibly for the public good.
Kat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Betty B" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 3:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: Attendant Woes
>
> I meant for this to be a matter of public record.
>
>
> In a message dated 1/27/2002 12:36:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
> > I have to agree with Anthony. If a person is so depressed she tries to
take
> > her own life, no matter how stupid a method it is, he or she needs to be
> > evaluated and if it will help, put on medication. She was going to her
> > hairdressing appointment, that's not being taken against her will
> >
> > Kat
> >
> First, it's not for you or me to decide what is or isn't for her. We
maybe
> shouldn't even be arguing this in such personal detail. Let me say then
that
> if anyone doesn't want to go to a like appointment, and they are made to
do
> so, they have been taken against their will. I cannot see it otherwise.
> They have said no, and the rape rule must apply. No means no.
>
> Give me liberty or give me death. That's the only message I've ever seen
> there. Time and time again, never wavering, never faltering. In spite of
> LIFE LONG oppression at the hands of sadistic bastards, this woman, this
> strong woman, has stayed resolute in this regard.
>
> How many who have been blessed with more of the things that able bodied
> people revere, have forgotten this passion for life, or perhaps never felt
> it?
>
> "Dum Vivimus Vivamis" While we live, let us live!
>
> For another, the stupid method to which you refer was a revolution that
> brought change and a fundamental shift of power that affected the entire
> world. There was a lot of collateral damage that day.
>
> Again, I don't advocate violence. Everybody who knows me knows that I
don't
> advocate violence. In this situation however, take away the disability
and
> the perpetrator -- the kidnapper -- would have gone to jail (at least I
hope
> that would have happened). The difference is disability. Are disabled
> people not allowed to say "I don't feel well and I don't want to go to an
> appointment that is not necessary anyway?"
>
> I'm really confused here. Are disabled people expected not to have the
> freedom to say that? Then, do people really have the right to take them
away
> anyway to the appointment, and then to their home instead of the disabled
> person's own home? There are a number of other things that concern me
about
> that latter fact alone.
>
> How is that professionally appropriate behavior? That is a violation of
> every thing I've ever heard or known about the moral code of attendant
> service. Interpreters for deaf people get strung up by their thumbs for
> committing moral violations that are a lot less invasive. The attendant
is
> but a minion, nothing more. A mere minion, without the moral right or
legal
> authority to inflict his own will. Show me his legal ground. Show me the
> statute that grants state authority to impose such will.
>
> Neither Kathy Jo, nor you, nor I, nor -- on moral grounds -- any person on
> this planet is less entitled to those fundamental liberties than Patrick
> Henry.
>
> Are there exceptions where some people should be medicated? Perhaps so,
but
> even the most qualified medical practitioner in the world cannot make that
> decision while the individual is still in a well known, well entrenched,
and
> well documented state of oppression at the hands of others.
>
> SELF DETERMINATION FIRST! How is it that this needs to be explained here?
> She was deprived of a basic liberty guaranteed her by the constitution of
the
> United States! She was taken from her home against her will, taken
hostage!
> Before she acted, she had been held hostage for what must have been a
period
> of several hours.
>
> Again I ask, did she even know for sure when she was going to get home
that
> day? She couldn't even decide when she wanted to go home. To her own
> home!!!
>
> This outrage has been compounded by a home team vilification. Yuk.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --part2_11e.ad03f10.2985b628_boundary
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
FACE="Arial" LANG="0">In a message dated 1/27/2002 12:36:01 PM Eastern
Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT:
5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I have to agree with
Anthony. If a person is so depressed she tries to take<BR>
> her own life, no matter how stupid a method it is, he or she needs to
be<BR>
> evaluated and if it will help, put on medication. She was
going to her<BR>
> hairdressing appointment, that's not being taken against her will<BR>
> <BR>
> Kat<BR>
> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
> First, it's not for you or me to decide what is or isn't for her. We
maybe shouldn't even be arguing this in such personal detail. Let me
say then that if anyone doesn't want to go to a like appointment, and they
are made to do so, they have been taken against their will. I cannot
see it otherwise. They have said no, and the rape rule must
apply. No means no. <BR>
> <BR>
> Give me liberty or give me death. That's the only message I've ever
seen there. Time and time again, never wavering, never
faltering. In spite of LIFE LONG oppression at the hands of sadistic
bastards, this woman, this strong woman, has stayed resolute in this
regard. <BR>
> <BR>
> How many who have been blessed with more of the things that able bodied
people revere, have forgotten this passion for life, or perhaps never felt
it? <BR>
> <BR>
> "Dum Vivimus Vivamis" While we live, let us live!
<BR>
> <BR>
> For another, the stupid method to which you refer was a revolution that
brought change and a fundamental shift of power that affected the entire
world. There was a lot of collateral damage that day. <BR>
> <BR>
> Again, I don't advocate violence. Everybody who knows me knows that
I don't advocate violence. In this situation however, take away the
disability and the perpetrator -- the kidnapper -- would have gone to jail
(at least I hope that would have happened). The difference is
disability. Are disabled people not allowed to say "I don't feel well
and I don't want to go to an appointment that is not necessary anyway?"<BR>
> <BR>
> I'm really confused here. Are disabled people expected not to have
the freedom to say that? Then, do people really have the right to take
them away anyway to the appointment, and then to their home instead of the
disabled person's own home? There are a number of other things that
concern me about that latter fact alone. <BR>
> <BR>
> How is that professionally appropriate behavior? That is a violation
of every thing I've ever heard or known about the moral code of attendant
service. Interpreters for deaf people get strung up by their thumbs
for committing moral violations that are a lot less invasive. The
attendant is but a minion, nothing more. A mere minion, without the
moral right or legal authority to inflict his own will. Show me his
legal ground. Show me the statute that grants state authority to
impose such will. <BR>
> <BR>
> Neither Kathy Jo, nor you, nor I, nor -- on moral grounds -- any person on
this planet is less entitled to those fundamental liberties than Patrick
Henry. <BR>
> <BR>
> Are there exceptions where some people should be medicated? Perhaps
so, but even the most qualified medical practitioner in the world cannot
make that decision while the individual is still in a well known, well
entrenched, and well documented state of oppression at the hands of
others. <BR>
> <BR>
> SELF DETERMINATION FIRST! How is it that this needs to be explained
here? She was deprived of a basic liberty guaranteed her by the
constitution of the United States! She was taken from her home against
her will, taken hostage! Before she acted, she had been held hostage
for what must have been a period of several hours. <BR>
> <BR>
> Again I ask, did she even know for sure when she was going to get home
that day? She couldn't even decide when she wanted to go home.
To her own home!!!<BR>
> <BR>
> This outrage has been compounded by a home team vilification. Yuk.
<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> </FONT></HTML>
> --part2_11e.ad03f10.2985b628_boundary--
>
> --part1_11e.ad03f10.2985b670_boundary--
|
