<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 10.00.9200.16635"></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>Helllo Edward,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV>Thankyou,</DIV>
<DIV>Elizabeth</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 7/17/2013 12:14:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
personal.edward@gmail.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000" color=#ffffff size=2
face=Arial>Hello,<BR><BR>My emails were not to entertain, rather to help in
giving a different<BR>viewpoint on the subject of if helping this child should
or shouldn't be<BR>discussed on this list. I believe I am being grossly
misquoted. I will not<BR>make anyone go back and reread my previous
email, I will paste the quote<BR>here. My quote is "we need to find a
balance between nfb philosophy, and<BR>humanity. They generally are in
sink, and where there may be a fine line, I<BR>think debates like this are
important." I never stated that the nfb's<BR>policies are
inhumane. Quite the opposite, I stated that they are generally<BR>in
sink. When I am speaking of humanity, I am doing so in the most
purest<BR>sense. I am defining humanity, or humanitarian acts as
strictly giving, or<BR>helping ones fellow man. I of course understand
that this is not what nfb<BR>philosophy is, but that doesn't mean I am stating
that the nfb is an<BR>inhumane organization, just the opposite. The
point I tried to make, and<BR>maybe didn't do a good job of making, is even
though asking for help for<BR>this child is not a direct nfb sanctioned event,
we should still allow it on<BR>the list, as long as we are not inundated with
such requests. Why, because<BR>it's simply the right thing to do.
It's an example of the fine line I am<BR>speaking of, and it's what makes the
nfb such an amazing organization.<BR>Finally, I will leave you with
this. After meeting so many good<BR>federationests at the 2013
convention a couple of weeks ago, I believe that<BR>the nfb is made up of one
part policy, one part philosophy, and two parts<BR>humanity. It is what
defines us. We are not just a collection of rules
and<BR>regulations. We are a group of strong decent people that
can show extreme<BR>generosity on one hand when needed, while still
being able to rely on the<BR>guiding principals of the nfb, without
compromising our humanity, nor our<BR>philosophy. <BR><BR>Thank
you,<BR>Edward<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Ct-nfb
[mailto:ct-nfb-bounces@nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Justin<BR>Salisbury<BR>Sent:
Tuesday, July 16, 2013 10:32 PM<BR>To: NFB of Connecticut Mailing
List<BR>Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] \blind Babies and the NFB<BR><BR>I am not
philosophically opposed to helping this baby acquire surgery.<BR><BR>This
cause is simply not appropriate for the National Federation of the<BR>blind of
Connecticut's work.<BR><BR>Recall the example I gave earlier involving public
schools and religion.<BR><BR>Our role in this cause is much greater than
circulating an email about it. <BR><BR>I don't believe there is anything
inhumane about our organizational<BR>philosophy, and I find it honestly a bit
entertaining that anyone would<BR>propose such an
idea.<BR><BR>Justin<BR><BR>Sent from my iPhone<BR><BR>On Jul 16, 2013, at
10:16 PM, "Edward" <personal.edward@gmail.com> wrote:<BR><BR>>
Hello<BR>> <BR>> I am not arguing that Justin's interpretation of nfb
philosophy is <BR>> incorrect. I am simply stating that asking for
help on this list does <BR>> not tarnish the nfb's philosophy in any
way. I think as long as we <BR>> are not inundated with emails asking
for help, the occasional email is <BR>> fine. Those that do not, or
cannot help can delete the emails, while <BR>> those that are able to help
can do so. The question here I think is, <BR>> should we the nfb of
Connecticut allow emails regarding blindness, but <BR>> not totally in line
with nfb philosophy be distributed on this list. <BR>> My feeling is
yes, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. Justin has <BR>> valid
points, and knows nfb policy extremely well, but I do believe we <BR>> need
to find a balance between nfb philosophy,and humanity. They <BR>>
generally are in sink, and where there may be a fine line, I think
debates<BR>like this are important.<BR>> <BR>> Thanks<BR>>
Edward<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From:
Ct-nfb [mailto:ct-nfb-bounces@nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nathanael T.<BR>>
Wales<BR>> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:47 PM<BR>> To: 'NFB of
Connecticut Mailing List'<BR>> Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] \blind Babies and the
NFB<BR>> <BR>> All,<BR>> <BR>> This is indeed a complex
subject. I am glad we are discussing it. <BR>> And I appreciate
the diplomacy and graciousness everyone has shown.<BR>> <BR>> I am glad
that we all seem to agree that the surgery to save this <BR>> baby's sight
is not a moral question. And I am glad that we agree to <BR>> keep
the commitment we have made as an organization through our
elected<BR>president.<BR>> <BR>> There seem to be two distinct issues at
hand, and I think we are <BR>> blurring (if you will) that
distinction:<BR>> 1. what the NFB's philosophy would have to tell us on
whether this <BR>> baby should have surgery 2. what and how much assistance
in getting <BR>> that surgery our work as an organization, or as Justin
quoted from our <BR>> NFB pledge the "programs of the Federation", should
be<BR>> <BR>> As a philosophical matter Justin has appropriately quoted,
"The real <BR>> problem of blindness is not the lack of eyesight; it is the
lack of <BR>> information and misperceptions which exist. With the
proper training <BR>> and opportunity, blind people can lead normal,
productive lives." <BR>> Information from two Federation leaders is
clear that in India a) lack <BR>> of information, b) misperceptions about
blindness, c) grossly <BR>> inadequate training, and d) such little
opportunity that it is <BR>> comparable to the United States in 1940 are
almost certainly the case. <BR>> Our own Federation leader Joyce Cain
has written in better detail, and <BR>> Joanne Wilson, founder of our NFB's
Louisiana Center for the Blind and <BR>> former Commissioner of the federal
Rehabilitation Services <BR>> Administration (whose first husband and
father of her five children <BR>> was Indian), would confirm this. In
order to live a "normal, <BR>> productive life", the expense to change even
one of these four <BR>> prerequisites would require more money, public good
will, and political<BR>capital than this child needs to receive surgery in the
United States.<BR>> <BR>> Let me address the more fundamental
philosophical matter, which in <BR>> comparison is a first world problem
but one that impacts all of us to <BR>> one degree or another.
Assuming that the cost, in time, effort, and <BR>> expense (the
individual's, his or her family's, or society on his or <BR>> her behalf),
of medical intervention to prevent or cure blindness was <BR>> the same as
a) providing information, b) addressing misperceptions <BR>> about
blindness, c) getting proper education and/or training, and d) <BR>>
fighting for and creating opportunities, which would we choose? Our
<BR>> NFB philosophy tells us that with these four prerequisites we can
have <BR>> "normal, productive lives" with blindness reduced to the level
of a <BR>> nuissance or inconvenience. All things being equal, we
should choose <BR>> the option with less nuissance or inconvenience.
There is neither a <BR>> moral problem (as we all agree) with preventing or
even curing <BR>> blindness nor is there an inherent philosophical
problem. Consider <BR>> Mark Riccobono's speech to the General
Session at our recent National <BR>> Convention: he spoke of his daughter
who inherited one of the genetic <BR>> conditions that causes his or his
wife's (I forget whose) blindness; <BR>> the doctors are following it,
treating it, but should they fail he and <BR>> his wife will turn to what I
am sure would be the best in the world<BR>information, proper perceptions,
education, and creation of opportunities.<BR>> Efforts to prevent, treat,
and cure blindness are often done with <BR>> horrible assumptions about
blindness that are diametrically opposed to <BR>> our philosophy, but those
assumptions are not inherent and the Riccobonos'<BR>> example is one of
several where it is done fully consistent with our <BR>> philosophy as the
assumption.<BR>> <BR>> The issue for us
to consider really is what and how much <BR>> assistance in getting that
surgery our work as an organization, or as <BR>> Justin quoted from our NFB
pledge the "programs of the Federation", <BR>> should be. The NFB
does this rarely as an organization, and there are <BR>> other charities
who do, such as the Lions as Trevor suggested. In <BR>> calculating
the medical intervention-its cost, likelihood of success, <BR>> risks,
etc.-we as an organization have little to no experience. Some <BR>>
members who have participated in this discussion have seen doctors at <BR>>
Yale and Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (one of whom is widely <BR>>
regarded as as close to a god in ophthalmology as possible) and have <BR>>
not seen these doctors in New York at all. Do we know that these are
<BR>> the best doctors for this baby? Have we sought second
opinions? I <BR>> don't raise these questions to criticize the
decision made. How could <BR>> I? How could any of us? I
raise them to point out that as a program <BR>> of the Federation we
couldn't in the future begin to provide or even <BR>> recommend medical
intervention well and really should leave that for<BR>others who
could.<BR>> <BR>> This is before even moving on to any negative public
perception we may <BR>> have created. I have watched the link to the
News 12 story and formed <BR>> my opinion of it; I encourage everyone to do
the same. But even if I <BR>> thought News 12 got it exactly correct,
the likelihood that we would <BR>> get our message out with dignity and the
assumption that blindness is <BR>> not a tragedy while collecting money for
medical interventions is <BR>> pretty low. On this listserve we have
not even come to a <BR>> philosophical conclusion ourselves on the matter,
so in future it will <BR>> be difficult for us to go to the public with
such a program.<BR>> <BR>> What we do best consistent with our
philosophy is create a normal <BR>> image of blindness, advocate for
excellent education for blind <BR>> children, provide best-in-the-world
training for blind adults, and <BR>> create ever-increasing opportunities
for blind people to succeed in <BR>> every facet of life we can think
of. I recommend that we keep the <BR>> commitment we have made, give
thought to this philosophical matter at <BR>> hand, and move forward with
what we agree on and know we do best.<BR>> <BR>> For example, since
we've made a connection with Senator Blumenthal, <BR>> let's use it.
He doesn't have to go to India to find people paid at <BR>> pennies an
hour; he just has to look at disabled people in this <BR>> country, and he
can do something about that, too.<BR>> <BR>> Best,<BR>> Nathanael T.
Wales<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From: Trevor Attenberg
<mailto:tattenberg@gmail.com><BR>> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:19
PM<BR>> To: 'NFB of Connecticut Mailing List'
<mailto:ct-nfb@nfbnet.org><BR>> Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] \blind Babies
and the NFB<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Hey'll,<BR>> <BR>> While I can't
speak for Justin, just like neither Justin nor I can <BR>> speak for you or
anyone else when push comes to shove, what Justin <BR>> said is derived
from NFB official documents and pledges. The reason <BR>> this conversation
has become rather long and complex, is because it is <BR>> a more complex
issue than what meets the eye. Justin and I have been <BR>> involved in a
lot of NFB related functions and institutions, like the <BR>> Louisiana
Center for the Blind. This does not make our opinions any <BR>> more
relevant than yours; but we have gotten a good sense of NFB <BR>> policy
and philosophy. The NFB philosophy is central to the <BR>> organization's
actions. The NFB does indeed seek to help those in <BR>> need; but in this
case, Justin and I believe the action here is not <BR>> the most effective
means of offering help, both for the family, and <BR>> for the blind as a
whole. This thinking is very much derived from our <BR>> exposure to NFB
philosophy. As many a blind person knows, sometimes <BR>> what seems
helpful can actually do much damage. With this said, none <BR>> of us wish
to intrude on efforts to help this child with vision problems.<BR>It is simply
requested we do not make this an NFB issue for reasons stated.<BR>>
<BR>> The NFB has a
long history of turning down requests for <BR>> assistance from blind
people. Federationist and blind lawyer Scott <BR>> Labarre brought this up
after the mock trial at the National <BR>> Convention. Sometimes blind
people do something foolish, or they hurt <BR>> themselves as a result of
lack of mobility skills. Then they come to <BR>> the NFB lawyers for
defense or to file a law suit. This obviously <BR>> isn't quite what we're
talking about with this child and family; but <BR>> it goes to show how the
Federation conducts its business based on our<BR>knowledge of the equal
potential of blind people.<BR>> <BR>> Best to ya,<BR>> <BR>>
Trevor A <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From:
Ct-nfb [mailto:ct-nfb-bounces@nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Sandee <BR>>
Kush<BR>> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:14 AM<BR>> To: NFB of
Connecticut Mailing List<BR>> Subject: [Ct-nfb] \blind Babies and the
NFB<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I am concerned and confused by the long
statement that Justin wrote.<BR>> <BR>> I do not know who the "we"
represents, just that it does not represent <BR>> my thinking and
others.<BR>> <BR>> Reference is made to Dr Mauer and other leadership
political <BR>> positions, were these people contacted or these
"manifestos" <BR>> interviewed or investigated prior to including them in
such a grandiose<BR>point of view statement?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> I have learned to keep things simple. Perhaps if the following
<BR>> questions were answered in a sentence or two, I might have some
clue.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The NFB should not get involved in a
humane effort to improve the <BR>> quality of a baby's life, due to the
resources the U.S. has available<BR>because...<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> How are the efforts to communicate the message of the NFB
regarding <BR>> the mission of individual independence and society's
consciousness <BR>> raising been reduced significantly because
of a humane desire to <BR>> publicize the plight of a baby by involving a
dedicated political<BR>representative?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
How does brining this situation into an internal NFB controversy
<BR>> benefit anyone in any way?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I
applaud and am proud to be associated with Beth Rival's and <BR>> immediate
team's efforts!<BR>> <BR>> Thank you.<BR>> <BR>>
________________________________<BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Ct-nfb mailing
list<BR>> Ct-nfb@nfbnet.org<BR>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org<BR>> To unsubscribe,
change your list options or get your account info for<BR>> Ct-nfb:<BR>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/ntwales%40omsoft.c<BR>>
om<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Ct-nfb mailing
list<BR>> Ct-nfb@nfbnet.org<BR>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org<BR>> To unsubscribe,
change your list options or get your account info for<BR>Ct-nfb:<BR>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/president%40alumni<BR>>
.ecu.edu<BR>>
<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Ct-nfb mailing
list<BR>Ct-nfb@nfbnet.org<BR>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org<BR>To
unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
for<BR>Ct-nfb:<BR>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/personal.edward%40gmail.<BR>com<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Ct-nfb
mailing
list<BR>Ct-nfb@nfbnet.org<BR>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org<BR>To
unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Ct-nfb:<BR>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/cookiechumper%40aol.com<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>