[nagdu] A Question of Philosophy

Marion & Martin swampfox1833 at verizon.net
Mon Oct 27 13:18:20 UTC 2008


Ann,
    Your post to this list certainly reinforces my belief that you have a 
strong foundation in the NFB philosophy of independence and 
self-determination. You have put a lot of thought into this message. I only 
hope that the writer will listen to you. My concern, however, is that this 
writer will feel as if you threaten her perception and, looking hard enough, 
will find someone who thinks you are nothing more than a "radical 
Federationist" and promulgate more of the sensational mythology many of 
those who would use such sensationalism to further their own agenda.
    Though all of us have had incidents in which we have avoided serious 
injury or, perhaps, death and, in some instances our guides have alerted us 
to the danger, we always have the choice and discretion to act upon the cues 
or not. I love my dog and know she is an excellent guide. I must, however, 
put all of this into perspective so as to not give the false impression that 
my dog is the head of the team! Such sensationalism as we often hear in the 
media and from fund raising tools all too often focus upon the "wonderful 
dog", furthering the misconception that the blind person is helpless and 
dependent and, if it were not for the dog, our lives would be empty! Keep up 
the great work!


Fraternally,
Marion


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ann Edie" <annedie at nycap.rr.com>
To: <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:06 PM
Subject: [nagdu] A Question of Philosophy


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/swampfox1833%40verizon.net 





More information about the NAGDU mailing list