[Ct-nfb] \blind Babies and the NFB

Cookiechumper at aol.com Cookiechumper at aol.com
Wed Jul 17 11:05:04 UTC 2013


Helllo Edward,
 
Your email was great and  to teh point.  What's teh  whole  thing here 
about our  philosophy   it should just be that fellow  people  who are reaching 
out to others in similar situations. I don't know  what it is of nfb, but 
what I can tell you is that there needs to be education  and information given 
to teh public   and the way it'll happen is if  we do teh 
speaking,changing,and leading by example adn that is what's happening  here we've reached out 
to someone in need, showing the public  how we do it  and  they'll follow 
behind so shouldn't that be a good enough  philosophy.
Thankyou,
Elizabeth
 
 
In a message dated 7/17/2013 12:14:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
personal.edward at gmail.com writes:

Hello,

My emails were not to entertain, rather to help in  giving a different
viewpoint on the subject of if helping this child should  or shouldn't be
discussed on this list.  I believe I am being grossly  misquoted.  I will 
not
make anyone go back and reread my previous  email, I will paste the quote
here.  My quote is "we need to find a  balance between nfb philosophy, and
humanity.  They generally are in  sink, and where there may be a fine line, 
I
think debates like this are  important."  I never stated that the nfb's
policies are  inhumane.  Quite the opposite, I stated that they are 
generally
in  sink.  When I am speaking of humanity, I am doing so in the most  purest
sense.  I am defining humanity, or humanitarian acts as  strictly giving, or
helping ones fellow man.  I of course understand  that this is not what nfb
philosophy is, but that doesn't mean I am stating  that the nfb is an
inhumane organization, just the opposite.  The  point I tried to make, and
maybe didn't do a good job of making, is even  though asking for help for
this child is not a direct nfb sanctioned event,  we should still allow it 
on
the list, as long as we are not inundated with  such requests.  Why, because
it's simply the right thing to do.   It's an example of the fine line I am
speaking of, and it's what makes the  nfb such an amazing organization.
Finally, I will leave you with  this.  After meeting so many good
federationests at the 2013  convention a couple of weeks ago, I believe that
the nfb is made up of one  part policy, one part philosophy, and two parts
humanity.  It is what  defines us.  We are not just a collection of rules  
and
regulations.  We are a group of strong decent people that   can show extreme
generosity on one hand  when needed, while still  being able to rely on the
guiding principals of the nfb, without  compromising our humanity, nor our
philosophy. 

Thank  you,
Edward

-----Original Message-----
From: Ct-nfb  [mailto:ct-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Justin
Salisbury
Sent:  Tuesday, July 16, 2013 10:32 PM
To: NFB of Connecticut Mailing  List
Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] \blind Babies and the NFB

I am not  philosophically opposed to helping this baby acquire surgery.

This  cause is simply not appropriate for the National Federation of the
blind of  Connecticut's work.

Recall the example I gave earlier involving public  schools and religion.

Our role in this cause is much greater than  circulating an email about it. 

I don't believe there is anything  inhumane about our organizational
philosophy, and I find it honestly a bit  entertaining that anyone would
propose such an  idea.

Justin

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 16, 2013, at  10:16 PM, "Edward" <personal.edward at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Hello
> 
> I am not arguing that Justin's interpretation of nfb  philosophy is 
> incorrect.  I am simply stating that asking for  help on this list does 
> not tarnish the nfb's philosophy in any  way.  I think as long as we 
> are not inundated with emails asking  for help, the occasional email is 
> fine.  Those that do not, or  cannot help can delete the emails, while 
> those that are able to help  can do so.  The question here I think is, 
> should we the nfb of  Connecticut allow emails regarding blindness, but 
> not totally in line  with nfb philosophy be distributed on this list.  
> My feeling is  yes, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.  Justin has 
> valid  points, and knows nfb policy extremely well, but I do believe we 
> need  to find a balance between nfb philosophy,and humanity.  They 
>  generally are in sink, and where there may be a fine line, I think  
debates
like this are important.
> 
> Thanks
>  Edward
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  Ct-nfb [mailto:ct-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nathanael T.
>  Wales
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:47 PM
> To: 'NFB of  Connecticut Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] \blind Babies and the  NFB
> 
> All,
> 
> This is indeed a complex  subject.  I am glad we are discussing it.  
> And I appreciate  the diplomacy and graciousness everyone has shown.
> 
> I am glad  that we all seem to agree that the surgery to save this 
> baby's sight  is not a moral question.  And I am glad that we agree to 
> keep  the commitment we have made as an organization through our  elected
president.
> 
> There seem to be two distinct issues at  hand, and I think we are 
> blurring (if you will) that  distinction:
> 1. what the NFB's philosophy would have to tell us on  whether this 
> baby should have surgery 2. what and how much assistance  in getting 
> that surgery our work as an organization, or as Justin  quoted from our 
> NFB pledge the "programs of the Federation", should  be
> 
> As a philosophical matter Justin has appropriately quoted,  "The real 
> problem of blindness is not the lack of eyesight; it is the  lack of 
> information and misperceptions which exist.  With the  proper training 
> and opportunity, blind people can lead normal,  productive lives."  
> Information from two Federation leaders is  clear that in India a) lack 
> of information, b) misperceptions about  blindness, c) grossly 
> inadequate training, and d) such little  opportunity that it is 
> comparable to the United States in 1940 are  almost certainly the case.  
> Our own Federation leader Joyce Cain  has written in better detail, and 
> Joanne Wilson, founder of our NFB's  Louisiana Center for the Blind and 
> former Commissioner of the federal  Rehabilitation Services 
> Administration (whose first husband and  father of her five children 
> was Indian), would confirm this.  In  order to live a "normal, 
> productive life", the expense to change even  one of these four 
> prerequisites would require more money, public good  will, and political
capital than this child needs to receive surgery in the  United States.
> 
> Let me address the more fundamental  philosophical matter, which in 
> comparison is a first world problem  but one that impacts all of us to 
> one degree or another.   Assuming that the cost, in time, effort, and 
> expense (the  individual's, his or her family's, or society on his or 
> her behalf),  of medical intervention to prevent or cure blindness was 
> the same as  a) providing information, b) addressing misperceptions 
> about  blindness, c) getting proper education and/or training, and d) 
>  fighting for and creating opportunities, which would we choose?  Our  
> NFB philosophy tells us that with these four prerequisites we can  have 
> "normal, productive lives" with blindness reduced to the level  of a 
> nuissance or inconvenience.  All things being equal, we  should choose 
> the option with less nuissance or inconvenience.   There is neither a 
> moral problem (as we all agree) with preventing or  even curing 
> blindness nor is there an inherent philosophical  problem.  Consider 
> Mark Riccobono's speech to the General  Session at our recent National 
> Convention: he spoke of his daughter  who inherited one of the genetic 
> conditions that causes his or his  wife's (I forget whose) blindness; 
> the doctors are following it,  treating it, but should they fail he and 
> his wife will turn to what I  am sure would be the best in the world
information, proper perceptions,  education, and creation of opportunities.
> Efforts to prevent, treat,  and cure blindness are often done with 
> horrible assumptions about  blindness that are diametrically opposed to 
> our philosophy, but those  assumptions are not inherent and the 
Riccobonos'
> example is one of  several where it is done fully consistent with our 
> philosophy as the  assumption.
> 
>         The issue for us  to consider really is what and how much 
> assistance in getting that  surgery our work as an organization, or as 
> Justin quoted from our NFB  pledge the "programs of the Federation", 
> should be.  The NFB  does this rarely as an organization, and there are 
> other charities  who do, such as the Lions as Trevor suggested.  In 
> calculating  the medical intervention-its cost, likelihood of success, 
> risks,  etc.-we as an organization have little to no experience.  Some 
>  members who have participated in this discussion have seen doctors at 
>  Yale and Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (one of whom is widely 
>  regarded as as close to a god in ophthalmology as possible) and have 
>  not seen these doctors in New York at all.  Do we know that these are  
> the best doctors for this baby?  Have we sought second  opinions?  I 
> don't raise these questions to criticize the  decision made.  How could 
> I?  How could any of us?  I  raise them to point out that as a program 
> of the Federation we  couldn't in the future begin to provide or even 
> recommend medical  intervention well and really should leave that for
others who  could.
> 
> This is before even moving on to any negative public  perception we may 
> have created.  I have watched the link to the  News 12 story and formed 
> my opinion of it; I encourage everyone to do  the same.  But even if I 
> thought News 12 got it exactly correct,  the likelihood that we would 
> get our message out with dignity and the  assumption that blindness is 
> not a tragedy while collecting money for  medical interventions is 
> pretty low.  On this listserve we have  not even come to a 
> philosophical conclusion ourselves on the matter,  so in future it will 
> be difficult for us to go to the public with  such a program.
> 
> What we do best consistent with our  philosophy is create a normal 
> image of blindness, advocate for  excellent education for blind 
> children, provide best-in-the-world  training for blind adults, and 
> create ever-increasing opportunities  for blind people to succeed in 
> every facet of life we can think  of.  I recommend that we keep the 
> commitment we have made, give  thought to this philosophical matter at 
> hand, and move forward with  what we agree on and know we do best.
> 
> For example, since  we've made a connection with Senator Blumenthal, 
> let's use it.   He doesn't have to go to India to find people paid at 
> pennies an  hour; he just has to look at disabled people in this 
> country, and he  can do something about that, too.
> 
> Best,
> Nathanael T.  Wales
> 
> 
> From: Trevor Attenberg  <mailto:tattenberg at gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:19  PM
> To: 'NFB of Connecticut Mailing List'  <mailto:ct-nfb at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] \blind Babies  and the NFB
> 
> 
> Hey'll,
> 
> While I can't  speak for Justin, just like neither Justin nor I can 
> speak for you or  anyone else when push comes to shove, what Justin 
> said is derived  from NFB official documents and pledges. The reason 
> this conversation  has become rather long and complex, is because it is 
> a more complex  issue than what meets the eye. Justin and I have been 
> involved in a  lot of NFB related functions and institutions, like the 
> Louisiana  Center for the Blind. This does not make our opinions any 
> more  relevant than yours; but we have gotten a good sense of NFB 
> policy  and philosophy. The NFB philosophy is central to the 
> organization's  actions. The NFB does indeed seek to help those in 
> need; but in this  case, Justin and I believe the action here is not 
> the most effective  means of offering help, both for the family, and 
> for the blind as a  whole. This thinking is very much derived from our 
> exposure to NFB  philosophy. As many a blind person knows, sometimes 
> what seems  helpful can actually do much damage. With this said, none 
> of us wish  to intrude on efforts to help this child with vision problems.
It is simply  requested we do not make this an NFB issue for reasons stated.
>  
>                The NFB has a  long history of turning down requests for 
> assistance from blind  people. Federationist and blind lawyer Scott 
> Labarre brought this up  after the mock trial at the National 
> Convention. Sometimes blind  people do something foolish, or they hurt 
> themselves as a result of  lack of mobility skills. Then they come to 
> the NFB lawyers for  defense or to file a law suit. This obviously 
> isn't quite what we're  talking about with this child and family; but 
> it goes to show how the  Federation conducts its business based on our
knowledge of the equal  potential of blind people.
> 
> Best to ya,
> 
>  Trevor A        
> 
> 
> 
> From:  Ct-nfb [mailto:ct-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Sandee 
>  Kush
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:14 AM
> To: NFB of  Connecticut Mailing List
> Subject: [Ct-nfb] \blind Babies and the  NFB
> 
> 
> 
> I am concerned and confused by the long  statement that Justin wrote.
> 
> I do not know who the "we"  represents, just that it does not represent 
> my thinking and  others.
> 
> Reference is made to Dr Mauer and other leadership  political 
> positions, were these people contacted or these  "manifestos" 
> interviewed or investigated prior to including them in  such a grandiose
point of view statement?
> 
> 
>  
> I have learned to keep things simple.  Perhaps if the following  
> questions were answered in a sentence or two, I might have some  clue.
> 
> 
> 
> The NFB should not get involved in a  humane effort to improve the 
> quality of a baby's life, due to the  resources the U.S. has available
because...
> 
> 
>  
> How are  the efforts to communicate the message of the NFB  regarding 
> the mission of individual independence and society's  consciousness 
> raising  been reduced  significantly because  of a humane desire to 
> publicize the plight of a baby by involving a  dedicated political
representative?
> 
> 
> 
>  How  does brining this situation into an internal NFB controversy  
> benefit anyone in any way?
> 
> 
> 
> I  applaud and am proud to be associated with Beth Rival's and 
> immediate  team's efforts!
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>  ________________________________
> 
>  _______________________________________________
> Ct-nfb mailing  list
> Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
>  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe,  change your list options or get your account info for
> Ct-nfb:
>  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/ntwales%40omsoft.c
>  om
> 
> 
>  _______________________________________________
> Ct-nfb mailing  list
> Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
>  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe,  change your list options or get your account info for
Ct-nfb:
>  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/president%40alumni
>  .ecu.edu
>  


_______________________________________________
Ct-nfb mailing  list
Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info  for
Ct-nfb:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/personal.edward%40gmail.
com


_______________________________________________
Ct-nfb  mailing  list
Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for  
Ct-nfb:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/cookiechumper%40aol.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130717/a4520fd5/attachment.html>


More information about the CT-NFB mailing list