[nagdu] Fidelco Responds to Guide Dog Users' Bill of Rights
Michael Hingson
Mike at michaelhingson.com
Wed Aug 14 23:04:37 UTC 2013
Hi Minh,
Let me take a whack at answering your questions and observations.
>A. The guide dog training program shall seek input from the consumer concerning the type of dog requested throughout the matching process.
* I really like this to an extent; I believe that it is necessary and important to gain consumer input (and my school, GDB does this well).
What I have misgivings on is the fact that this could be interpreted by a consumer to say that they can receive any dog they want. . I believe that it is best to let the instructors choose your dog for you, unless you really do have requirements that are not just something you specifically want. I think here it is important to distinguish between "I want"/"I need." I have heard a lot of stories about people adamantly insisting on a specific type of dog and how disastrously wrong that match was. I believe that the trainers know best what kind of dog a user might need and as consumers of the organization, we should respect their expert opinions. Again, I'm not saying that consumer input is not valuable and should be discouraged, but that people shouldn't have a free reign when deciding what dog they are going to get.
[Michael Hingson] I understand what you are saying, but not all schools take into consideration the views and wishes of consumers. Many consumers have specific breed preferences which may or may not be able to be accommodated, but consumers should be able to have a say. If a specific breed preference cannot be met then the consumer has to make a choice as to whether or not they wish to continue with the process with that school. Before class date instructors should have a pretty good idea of what preferences they can meet and should communicate with the consumer. The schools can always make sure they make it clear in their literature that they MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL PREFERENCES, BUT THAT THEY WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF THE CONSUMER. The Bill of Rights does not ask for free reign anyway.
>A. The consumers freedom of independent travel with a white cane shall
>not be restricted by the training program, unless doing so would
interfere with the training process or adversely impact other consumers.
* I was honestly confused by the word "restrictions." Are there training programs out there that do not allow their clients to use a white cane at all? If it so, then I definitely do not agree with that as there have been instances in which I have had to take out my cane and heel my dog in order to find certain landmarks. However, there could be people guide dog users that tend to refer back to their canes more than working with their guides, which would defeat the whole purpose of getting a guide in the first place.
[Michael Hingson] There have been schools which have forbidden the use of canes on campus. GDB was one such school as I know full well since I received my first through fourth guide dogs from there. I got Squire, #1, in 1964 and Linnie, #4, in 1996. Canes were not allowed anywhere on campus by students. When I received Roselle, my fifth guide in 1999, the policy had relaxed a bit, but a big deal was still made about cane use even before the guides were issued. GDB has changed their policies even more since then. Would that all schools would be so progressive.
Whether or not a consumer pulls out their cane regularly and thus defeats the purpose of training depends in large part on how good the training is at the school. If the instructors instill the value of real trust and help individuals forge a good Human-Animal bond then there won't be such a problem.
>B. Consumers shall be free to independently monitor and >manage their personal health, including, but not limited >to blood pressure monitoring, blood glucose testing, insulin injections, pain management regimens, and all other health maintenance routines. Assistance may be offered; however, the consumer has the right to refuse such assistance.
This is one of those legal issues that I was concerned with. It is important I guess as long as the refusal is done with the knowledge that improper use of the medications does not negatively impact the organization they are training at.
[Michael Hingson] Show me any school attended by sighted mature people where monitoring and administering of medications is required to be conducted by staff. It is no more nor less a legal issue for any other place than it is at a guide dog school. The Consumers Bill Of Rights is all about demanding the same expectations and attitudes toward people as the staff has towards itself and other sighted people.
>D. Consumers shall be afforded opportunities to independently travel off-campus accompanied by their guide dogs prior to completion of training At the discretion of the training program.
I pretty much say no here; GDB does not allow you to go gallivanting off campus because it could be dangerous for both you and the dog if you are an untrained guide dog user. I still feel that even as a retrain, it could still be dangerous if you don't know the dog very well.
Alternatively, I believe there are also legal implications if something should happen to a dog; from what I was told, after graduation a sort of partial ownership is transferred to you. I equate this situation with getting a driver's license; you wouldn't want somebody that did not complete their driver's course to roam the streets. It takes time for a dog and handler to understand one another's patterns and habits and allowing someone to just take off with a guide just doesn't make sense.
[Michael Hingson] Actually there is no problem here. Again, where are there legal issues that concern colleges restricting the movements of people? High Schools often do, but it is an age and maturity issue, and the law does mandate that the high schools protect their students. Does any trade school restrict people? No. However, rather than getting into a dispute of this please keep in mind the part of this section that states "At the discretion of the training program". GDB does permit some people to leave campus at times, but the instructors make that determination. The NFB orientation and adjustment centers as well as many other training centers around the country actually encourage out of residence travel. This all has to be left to the instructor to address on a case by case basis which is exactly what the Bill Of Rights says should happen.
>B. A consumer’s refusal to allow other training programs >to share
information during the application process >shall not be used as the sole grounds for >denial of services.
I am kind of confused here; I don't believe your information should be randomly shared, but I do believe that organizations such as GDB have the right (and the responsibility really) to request information from other organizations. My concern is this scenario; a client could have had a dog from 3 other schools that was taken away for specific reasons.
Perhaps one bad experience with one school should not be an indicator of the client, but multiple experiences should have to be explained and should be known to the school at which you are applying. I believe that if an organization is going to invest in a dog and training of a client, they should be aware of the client's record before making that investment.
[Michael Hingson] Really? There are many examples of schools that have stated they have the kind of information you describe, but that actually do not. Even so, if information is shared among schools the consumer should be able to see and address this information. Other kinds of schools do have the right to request prior transcripts and that information is used in determining matriculation by a student, but guide dog schools do not have any standard hard concrete data of that sort. Schools have made wrong decisions and they have used erroneous information to make them. We, the consumers, have the right to make sure that truth and reality are used. GDB has put a lot of checks and balances in place, but even there some of the entrance decisions are questionable on both sides of the equation. The consumer should have the opportunity and must have the right to answer questions raised concerning their prior performances and records.
>B. Follow up services shall be optional. Invitations for >follow up
services may be made when a representative will >be in the area, with the understanding >that the consumer may decline the offer without >consequences.
To a point, I agree with this; I've heard a ton of stories about representatives just randomly dropping in on clients. I believe that this shouldn't be made optional though; if you personally agree upon receiving training or a dog that you will be visited say, once a year until it is decided that this isn't necessary, then you should be held to this. By investing in a dog and a client, the organization should have the right to check on their dogs and make sure everything is ok.
[Michael Hingson] Why? Tell me about any other school that has a hard requirement about such a thing. This is about Trust. If a school admits someone and they complete the course then that individual should be treated as a trusted member of the schools community. Instructors can call and offer to visit and conduct follow-up visits, but mandatory visits, absolutely not. If the excuse of "needing to monitor the dog and insure proper treatment" is invoked then again, where is the trust? Blind people should not be treated differently than anyone else.
>A. i. Consumers shall have the right to know the >identities of those
who file allegations
>of abuse, maltreatment and/or neglect and shall be given >the opportunity to answer such allegations before the >training program commences any action. Anonymous >complaints shall not be accepted.
I know a few people here feel pretty strongly about this. I do believe it is important to know what the complaint was and why, but I believe the person should be able to remain anonymous. Again, I see a scenario in which a dog is having a lot of issues, or perhaps the person is mistreating their dog in a workplace, but where a person does not want to make their name known because it may cause issues. The organization should encourage dialog between the complainant and the handler, or in the least facilitate some sort of dialog with the other person remaining anonymous. Maybe a system can be implemented where anonymous complaints can be verified that they are coming from a credible source before being investigated.
[Michael Hingson] Too bad. Anonymity shouldn't be permitted. The accused should have the right to face their accusers, a right guaranteed under the Constitution. There should not be a double standard. This is why whistleblower laws are now in play. People have all sorts of motives for complaining about something. Schools have, in the past, misused their complaint processes to take away guide dogs. The burden MUST be on the schools and the rights of consumers should be tantamount above all.
Minh, the Bill Of Rights is all about demanding equal treatment and consideration under a system that has been extremely paternalistic for more than 80 years. Some schools such as GDB and TSE have made great strides, but even they have a distance to go. For example, I have heard representatives from many schools, including GDB and TSE, say that they impose their policies because they have to answer to donors who might not like the freedoms we demand. My response to this is "bosh". The schools, if they truly believe in equality, can and would have even a better story to tell donors if they would spend more time discussing how their graduates have become more a part of society. Without being sappy I have no problem with schools taking some of the credit for this.
It is time for ALL guide dog schools to come into the 21st century and grow up. Through the NFB we as consumers are growing and now we demand the same of guide dog schools. Just look at Marion's commentary on Fidelco to see how far some schools have to go. Fidelco is not alone. I heard some pretty abhorrent comments from several of the school representatives at this year's NAGDU meeting.
The Consumer's Bill Of Rights was thought out and developed over most of a year. There were compromises and even some more radical demands were not included. I think it a good document. All schools should, as a matter of policy, think so as well unless they are not truly confident of their graduates and thus have less than a good opinion of blind people.
Best,
Michael Hingson
-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of minh ha
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 01:37 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fidelco Responds to Guide Dog Users' Bill of Rights
Michael and Tina,
My boyfriend (who is also a guide dog user) and I compiled the following concerns/comments. I think a lot of the issues we have are more legal stuff that we feel that the Bill of Rights didn't really take into consideration. However, I don't know the rationalization behind these proposals, so some clarification and discussion would be appreciated.
>A. The guide dog training program shall seek input from the consumer concerning the type of dog requested throughout the matching process.
* I really like this to an extent; I believe that it is necessary and important to gain consumer input (and my school, GDB does this well).
What I have misgivings on is the fact that this could be interpreted by a consumer to say that they can receive any dog they want. . I believe that it is best to let the instructors choose your dog for you, unless you really do have requirements that are not just something you specifically want. I think here it is important to distinguish between "I want"/"I need." I have heard a lot of stories about people ademently insisting on a specific type of dog and how disastrously wrong that match was. I believe that the trainers know best what kind of dog a user might need and as consumers of the organization, we should respect their expert opinions. Again, I'm not saying that consumer input is not valuable and should be discouraged, but that people shouldn't have a free reign when deciding what dog they are going to get.
>A. The consumers freedom of independent travel with a white cane shall
>not be restricted by the training program, unless doing so would
interfere with the training process or adversely impact other consumers.
* I was honestly confused by the word "restrictions." Are there training programs out there that do not allow their clients to use a white cane at all? If it so, then I definitely do not agree with that as there have been instances in which I have had to take out my cane and heel my dog in order to find certain landmarks. However, there could be people guide dog users that tend to refer back to their canes more than working with their guides, which would defeat the whole purpose of getting a guide in the first place.
>B. Consumers shall be free to independently monitor and >manage their personal health, including, but not limited >to blood pressure monitoring, blood glucose testing, insulin injections, pain management regimens, and all other health maintenance routines. Assistance may be offered; however, the consumer has the right to refuse such assistance.
This is one of those legal issues that I was concerned with. It is important I guess as long as the refusal is done with the knowledge that improper use of the medications does not negatively impact the organization they are training at.
>D. Consumers shall be afforded opportunities to independently travel off-campus accompanied by their guide dogs prior to completion of training At the discression of the training program.
I pretty much say no here; GDB does not allow you to go galavanting off campus because it could be dangerous for both you and the dog if you are an untrained guidedog user. I still feel that even as a retrain, it could still be dangerous if you don't know the dog very well.
Alternatively, I believe there are also legal implications if something should happen to a dog; from what I was told, after graduation a sort of partial ownership is transfered to you. I equate this situation with getting a driver's license; you wouldn't want somebody that did not complete their driver's course to roam the streets. It takes time for a dog and handler to understand one another's patterns and habits and allowing someone to just take off with a guide just doesn't make sense.
>B. A consumer’s refusal to allow other training programs >to share
information during the application process >shall not be used as the sole grounds for >denial of services.
I am kind of confused here; I don't believe your information should be randomly shared, but I do believe that organizations such as gdb have the right (and the responsibility really) to request information from other organizations. My concern is this scenario; a client could have had a dog from 3 other schools that was taken away for specific reasons.
Perhaps one bad experience with one school should not be an indicator of the client, but multiple experiences should have to be explained and should be known to the school at which you are applying. I believe that if an organization is going to invest in a dog and training of a client, they should be aware of the client's record before making that investment.
>B. Follow up services shall be optional. Invitations for >follow up
services may be made when a representative will >be in the area, with the understanding >that the consumer may decline the offer without >consequences.
To a point, I agree with this; I've heard a ton of stories about representatives just randomly dropping in on clients. I believe that this shouldn't be made optional though; if you personally agree upon receiving training or a dog that you will be visited say, once a year until it is decided that this isn't necessary, then you should be held to this. By investing in a dog and a client, the organization should have the right to check on their dogs and make sure everything is ok.
>A. i. Consumers shall have the right to know the >identities of those
who file allegations
>of abuse, maltreatment and/or neglect and shall be given >the opportunity to answer such allegations before the >training program commences any action. Anonymous >complaints shall not be accepted.
I know a few people here feel pretty strongly about this. I do believe it is important to know what the complaint was and why, but I believe the person should be able to remain anonymous. Again, I see a scenario in which a dog is having a lot of issues, or perhaps the person is mistreating their dog in a workplace, but where a person does not want to make their name known because it may cause issues. The organization should encourage dialog between the the complaintant and the handler, or in the least facilitate some sort of dialog with the other person remaining anonymous. Maybe a system can be implemented where anonymous complaints can be verified that they are coming from a credible source before being investigated.
On 8/14/13, Tina Thomas <judotina48kg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello- I would be very interested in your concerns and misgivings on
> the bill of rights.
> Tina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of minh ha
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:09 PM
> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fidelco Responds to Guide Dog Users' Bill of
> Rights
>
> Marion,
>
> Has the Bill of Rights already been voted on at this year's national
> convention? I just read it on the blog and agree with many of the points.
> There were only a couple that I had misgivings on and I was wondering
> if there was a place to comment on them.
>
> Minh
>
> On 8/14/13, National Association of Guide Dog Users
> <blind411 at verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Sheila,
>> If you go to the blog, you will be able to read exactly what Fidelco
>
>> said - or did not say - as well as my commentary on their response.
>>
>> Marion
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Sheila
>> Leigland
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 1:43 PM
>> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fidelco Responds to Guide Dog Users' Bill of
>> Rights
>>
>> from what I remember there wasn't much response from fidelco I was
>> hoping for more openness from the representative.
>> On 8/14/2013 11:33 AM, National Association of Guide Dog Users wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> During this year's annual meeting of the National
>>> Association of Guide Dog Users (NAGDU), a strong and proud division
>>> of the National Federation of the Blind, we invited guide dog
>>> training programs to offer input on our Guide dog Users' Bil of
>>> Rights. The first of these responses is from the Fidelco Guide Dog
>>> Foundation, along with official comments from NAGDU. You can read
>>> this response and our commentary on our Harness Up! Blog by going to
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://harnessup.wordpress.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The text of our Guide dog Users' Bill of Rights is also available on
>>> our blog. Please feel free to leave comments!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fraternally yours,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marion Gwizdala, President
>>>
>>> National Association of Guide Dog Users Inc.
>>>
>>> National Federation of the Blind
>>>
>>> (813) 626-2789 (Office)
>>>
>>> 888-NAGDU411 (Hotline
>>>
>>> President at nagdu.org
>>>
>>> www.nagdu.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nagdu mailing list
>>> nagdu at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>> for
>> nagdu:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/sleigland%40bresn
>>> a
>>> n
>>> .net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nagdu mailing list
>> nagdu at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nagdu:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.
>> net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nagdu mailing list
>> nagdu at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nagdu:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/minh.ha927%40gmail.
>> com
>>
>
>
> --
> "All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty
> recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity:
> but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on
> their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible." T. E. Lawrence
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/judotina48kg%40gmai
> l.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/minh.ha927%40gmail.
> com
>
--
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible." T. E. Lawrence
_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/info%40michaelhingson.com
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list