[blindlaw] Fw: Accommodation and Compliance series:The ADAAmendments Act of 2008

[T. Joseph Carter]

More importantly, you can have the devices, and they may help you deal with 
the world around you, but at the end of the day, you're still blind, 
regardless of what they do for you.

I have some vision and, with the right optical technology, I can see much
further than a normally sighted person can with their naked eye.  Of 
course, a sighted person can use a telescope just as easily as I can, and 
it's just about as practical.  I'm still blind, regardless, because the 
best I can get under optimal lighting with corrective lenses is about 
20/240, and I get terrible headaches trying to use them even then.

Consequently, I haven't worn corrective lenses in a very long time.  The 
difference between 20/240 and 20/310 isn't that significant if you factor 
in the headaches and the affect that sub-optimal (read: normal) lighting 
has to decrease my functional vision usage.

At the end of the day, I still can't depend upon my eyes.

Joseph

On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 03:03:27PM -0800, Mark BurningHawk wrote:
> I would hate for my disability to be judged by the external devices or  
> amount of assistance I require.  It seems to me that, even if I were able 
> to rid myself of all adaptive devices, I would still be blind, and 
> subject to the prejudice of thers--this prejudice is the real disability, 
> though I understand full well that you can't quantify it for legal 
> purposes.  Still, I'm not sure that this really addresses the problem, 
> just scoops more people into the net.  *shrug*
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "T. Joseph Carter" 
> <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 1:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Accommodation and Compliance series:The  
> ADAAmendments Act of 2008
>
>
>> Mark,
>>
>> It seems to be an indirect way of saying that the measurement of visual 
>> acuity, for the purposes of the ADAA, shall be done with simple optical 
>> correction, rather than without.  In other words, if you wear glasses 
>> or contacts, your acuity with correction determines your level of 
>> disability, rather than without them.  Since that standard is already 
>> applied in the definition of "blindness", it seems reasonable to apply 
>> it also in the ADAA.
>>
>> In all other cases, adaptive devices and technologies, medical or other 
>> interventions, and pretty much anything else you can think of which 
>> might classify you as "less" disabled or "no longer" disabled shall not 
>> be considered.
>>
>> Of course, that's a layman's interpretation.  If you need a legal 
>> opinion, consult someone who knows what they're talking about.  *grin*
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 07:50:57AM -0800, Mark BurningHawk wrote:
>>> Am I understanding correctly, that a person with contact lenses is  
>>> considered disabled?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for  
>> blindlaw:
  
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stone_troll%40sbcglobal.net 
>> 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com