[nagdu] my list of guide user rights

[Steven Johnson]

Julie,
I like this.
One clarification though on this item:
*no anonymous complaints.  I believe the handler has the right to know who
is calling the program and accusing them.  Likewise programs calling other
guide dog users in the area to get dirt on another handler is totally
inexcusable.  

We cannot stop individuals from reporting anonymously.  I do not believe
this is what you meant, but if a concern comes in anonymously, then the
school can do nothing but relay that it was anonymous.

Just my thoughts for now,

Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Julie J
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:55 AM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: [nagdu] my list of guide user rights

I have been giving Peter's original idea some thought.   Here's what I would
like to see NAGDU pursue.  I'm not sure if this is something to include in
state laws, federal laws or something to approach IGDF or another
organization with.  anyway here goes.


*the option of ownership upon graduation to all qualifying individuals.
What qualifies an individual  for ownership would need to be spelled out in
detail, but should generally be attainable by the vast majority of students,
let's say 98% or greater.   For those who ownership is not immediate, it
should be attainable in the next year.  during that time continued support
should be offered in the areas where the individual has difficulty.  I'm
specifically thinking of very young users or those with additional
disabilities such as cognitive impairments.  

*For individuals who own their dog follow up services should be optional and
at the request of the handler. 

*no anonymous complaints.  I believe the handler has the right to know who
is calling the program and accusing them.  Likewise programs calling other
guide dog users in the area to get dirt on another handler is totally
inexcusable.  

*refusal of a handler to allow programs to share information should not be a
reason for denial of a guide dog.  I view this very similarly to a job
application and previous employers.  You don't have to allow those people to
be contacted. You don't even have  to disclose that you have worked at a
particular place.

*all contracts, agreements or any other paperwork the student will be
expected to sign should be available for review before arriving at the
program

*all rules to be followed while at the program should be available for
review before arrival at the program

*students freedom of independent travel should never be restricted.  I
understand the programs are in the business of training and placing dogs and
that this is the purpose of going there.  However I cannot in good
conscience support any establishment that prevents blind people's freedom.
Certainly I do not expect that the very new guide dog would go along with
the blind person.  I would also expect the blind person to understand they
are at the program for the benefit of training with the dog, not sightseeing
or family reunions.  I guess for me it's about balance and choice.

*all decisions of the program such as denial of a dog, should be made in
writing with a detailed explanation of the decision

* remove of a dog should only be done after an investigation by a third
party, such as animal control or law enforcement.  The decision and detailed
explanation should be given in writing.  

*all decisions of the program such as denial of placement or removal of a
dog should have an appeal procedure.

*medical assistance should be voluntary and at the request of the blind
individual, unless of course it's an emergency and the person is unconscious
or something.  I'm specifically thinking of blind people who are diabetic or
have some other on going health issue.  Most people are used to caring for
themselves.  This should be respected, allowed and encouraged throughout
guide dog training.

*retirement of the dog should be the decision of the blind handler.
Placement of the dog after retirement should be the decision of the handler.
If the handler wishes to return the dog to the program for placement in the
puppy home or other suitable place that's fine.  

*This one is wishful thinking on my part, but I'll toss it in.  I would
really like to see more input by the handler in the matching process.  I'm
not suggesting pick of the litter, but working with 2 or 3 potential dogs
briefly or meeting the dogs in a casual play session so the handler can
choose or at least have a vote in the match.

anyway that's my thoughts.  I'm snowed in and there isn't much to do but
ponder!

Thoughts?
Julie


_______________________________________________
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/blinddog3%40charter.n
et