[nagdu] A Question of Philosophy

[Ann Edie]

Hi, Everyone,,

I have recently been contacted by a writer who is writing a book about "animals which save lives".  She is interested in talking with me about Panda and her work as a guide.  I responded to the writer that I am always happy to talk about Panda and her guide work, but that I had some qualms about focusing on the "life-saving", dramatic aspect of our partnership.

I know that many guide dog users will say that their dogs "save their lives" many times each day.  But to me this statement can very easily be misunderstood by the general public.  It could give the impression that blind people are incapable of traveling safely outside their homes without the miraculous life-saving instincts and skills of a specially-bred and specially-trained service animal.  Although I very much appreciate my guide's abilities to guide me around obstacles, to evaluate footing for hazardous conditions, to plan a route through construction sites and other complicated situations, and to judge traffic and take evasive action or exercise intelligent disobedience where necessary, I guess I am more inclined to frame our safe travel as the result of contributions by both the human and the animal members of the partnership.

Also, I usually think of Panda's guide work as making travel smoother, more efficient, and more relaxing and enjoyable for me, rather than as a matter of life and death.  I feel that I am capable of traveling safely using my white cane, as well as using my guide animal.  In either case, I still must use my senses of hearing, touch, and smell, and my intelligence, experience, and judgment to evaluate the environment around me every moment as I travel.  Of course, I appreciate the assistance that Panda provides me, or why would I take on the added responsibilities and chores that caring for an animal partner and maintaining a working partnership entail?

Another reason that I am reluctant to talk about the work of a guide animal as "life-saving" work is that I do not regard the world as an inherently dangerous and scary place, or at least, not significantly more dangerous to me as a blind person than to anyone else in the general population.  I can remember sitting in my 7th grade health class and hearing the teacher say, "Turn to the person sitting next to you and take a good look at him or her.  Statistics show that one of the two of you will be seriously injured or killed in a traffic accident."  And this was in a class where everyone was fully-sighted, except for me.

I know that one way of looking at the world is that we are taking our lives into our hands every time we venture out onto the streets.  In that light, the service our guides provide may be considered truly life-saving.  But then, don't we take risks of harm to life and health every time we breathe the air, drink the water, or eat food purchased at the local market?  The alternative, of not doing anything unless it can be shown to be risk-free, is neither very attractive, nor very practical.

And here is the final thought that causes me pause when I am asked to describe the "life-saving" work of my guide:  Haven't we all heard of blind people who have been injured or killed while walking with their guide animals?  Obviously, there is no guarantee of safety, with or without a well-trained guide animal.  There is only the increased probability of successful travel that can be achieved by using all the skills and techniques that we ourselves judge will work best for each of us as individuals.

I would welcome your thoughts on this subject to help me formulate how to frame the discussion with the writer who has contacted me, as well as for future reference.

Best,
Ann