[nagdu] Why Not Ownership?

[Craig Heaps]

Marion:

Thanks for the time you took to provide a lengthy explanation of your 
position in this amtter.  Well I disagree with much of it, I should make one 
thing clear: on the question of immediate ownership, I am not in either 
camp.  I do not advocate immediate ownership of one's guide dog.  I do not 
oppoase it.  I am simply fine with the schools setting their own policies 
and consumers (for lack of a better term, though that lack might not 
exist) -- with full disclosxure of those poliices -- deciding whether they 
wish to consume the schools' free services in accordance with the policies 
made clear to them before they choose to participate.

Let me address some things by responding in the body of your text:

> As long as we, the blind, see ourselves as recipients or, in a more
> accurate term, beneficiaries, we will see ourselves as powerless, subject 
> to
> the whim of our benefactors. This attitude will lead us to believe that
> those who were so gracious as to give us this wonderful dog, all this
> outstanding training, room & board for 26 days, all the follow-up training
> and advice, and any other value-aded benefits, have the right to treat us 
> in
> a way that is less than dignified. Our benefactors will believe they can
> interfere in our lives, require us to submit our dog's medical records,
> require we feed the dog the food they tell us, call us and demand to see 
> our
> dog in 10 minutes or less, and - should we resist, threaten to repossess 
> our
> dog because they have the right to do so at their sole and absolute
> discretion.

    I'm sorry but I don't buy this proposition you've put forth a priori.  I 
see myself as a beneficiary.  I do not see myself as powerless.  Thus the 
universality of your proclamation is denied.  If you believe the 
organization that offers you a free guide dog and free training is likely to 
be artitrary and capriciouos, I think you have the greatest power of all. 
You withhold your participation with them and seek out a school that gives 
you immediate ownership.  I suspect a post on this forum would quckly reveal 
which schools one might consider worthy of skepticism.

>
> Now, this may sound as if I am being irrational by engaging in
> exaggeration; however, there are training programs who currently hold 
> these
> attitudes and practices. I will admit that GDB seems to treat their
> consumers with dignity and fairness. The question still remains, though,
> "Why not ownership?" The simple answer is they want the power. Again, the
> primary question is "Why?" Are there not other ways in which they can
> deliver services and retain the right, through third party objective
> evidence and authority of law to ensure that the dog and the training
> programs' rights are protected? The answer is rhetorical, as such measures
> are in place!

I realize both the answer and the question are rhetorical.  However, I have 
no respnse -- rhetorical or otherwide.  Why?  (Rhetorical queston, I 
suppose.) Because it's not my policy.  I have no idea why the organizations 
choose to withhold, delay or grant ownership.  But I know it's GDB's policy, 
and I knew it before I went there to receiive a free guide dog and free 
training in how to partner with him.  And I accpeted it as part of the deal. 
Otherwise, I would have gone elsewhere.

>
> While on the subject of consumer vs. beneficiary, we must keep in
> mind that the training programs use the blind to solicit funds on our
> behalf. Each year these programs raise hundreds of millions of dollars
> collectively to provide services to us. In doing so, they tell their 
> donors
> they give us this gift of these wonderful dogs, this awesome training, 
> and,
> in many cases, they even assert they give us dignity! The whole concept of
> conferring dignity could take several pages, so let me just address the
> "giving" concept, since the question of whether or not a guide dog confers
> dignity is irrelevant to the discussion of ownership at hand.
>
> When property is exchanged, whether it is purchased or given as a
> gift, the ownership rights to the property are transferred to the 
> recipient.
> Once given, the giver has no claim upon the property, unless the property
> were given in exchange for a promise of a future contractual obligation.
> Only if the future contractual obligation is breached does the giver have 
> a
> right to repossess the property. The most common form of property given in
> consideration of a future contractual obligation is the giving of an
> engagement ring accepted in exchange for the promise to enter into the
> contract of marriage. . Other such exchanges of property given in advance 
> of
> the fulfillment of a future obligation are signing bonuses and financing
> agreements. If one does not begin working or does not pay the finance
> company, the property exchanged prior to the breach of the contract must 
> be
> returned.

Well, that's kind of long and complicated.  But let me just say, I don't 
view my guide dog as a gift in the sense of a birthday or Christmas present. 
He is a gift in a metaphorical sense.  He is a gift of independence.  But I 
don't see that inherently imputing his ownership to me.  The use of my guide 
dog was granted under a clearly defined contract that did not include 
immeidate ownership.  So your argument is moot.  The conditions of the 
agreement between me and GDB are clear on this matter.  I read it.  I signed 
it.  I agreed to it.

As for the organizations rasing money, I'm find your argument to be a non 
sequitur.  To me, it does not follow that because they use my participation 
to raise money to make my participation possible, that they somehow owe me 
ownership of the guide dog they have provided.

I worked for nearly forty years in television.  Some of that was before 
cable.  We put programming out in the air for people to use for free.  They 
could use that programming for their information or entertainment.  We then 
took those viewers in the agregate and sold their participation to 
advertisers.  We collected money based on viewers' participation in the 
programming process.  However, that in no way imputed to the viewers any 
rights of ownership of the television programming they received.  They could 
not record it and redistribute it for commercial purposes without "express 
written permission".

>
> Either guide dog ttraining programs believe blind people are capable
> of caring for their dogs or they do not. If they do, they transfer 
> ownership
> upon completion of training. If they do not, they require the blind person
> to prove the ability to do so during a probationary period or whatever
> euphemism they employ to limit the dignity they assert they give us.
> Apparently, we must prove we are worthy of the dignity they will bestow 
> upon
> us so graciously!

You have defined a very narrow window of possibilities.  "Either / or".  I'm 
not sure it's that simple.  I feel no loss of dignity because I agreed -- as 
an informated adult -- to participate in a program that provides to me a 
guide dog at no cost to me.  And asks in exchange that I care appropriately 
for the dog.  And I don't have a problem with an organization that provides 
700 dogs a year at no cost to the recipients judging whether I'm doing that 
properly.  It is not an offense to my dignity or to my sense of worth.
>
> The issue of ownership is not, as one writer seemed to imply, such a
> minor issue it does not deserve the attention we  give it. In fact, it is
> the most important issue we bring forward as it reflects the fundamental
> belief of the National Federation of the Blind - the real problem of
> blindness is not the blindness but the stereotypes that influence the way 
> in
> which society views us. The ownership issue is, therefore, a reflection of
> the perspective of the training program and this perspective will guide
> every policy, practice, and procedure of that program. If we are 
> first-class
> citizens who are capable of making our way in the world without the
> paternalistic, custodial care of others; if we have the ability to bear 
> and
> raise our children; if we have the capacity to enter into a contractual
> agreement; if we have all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, 
> wy
> do we need to prove ourselves to a paternalistic training program?

Wow.  Well, all I can say is that sighted or blind, two or four weeks of 
training do not make you an expert on teh care of guide dogs.  And if 
someone who by virture of raising tens of thousands of dogs over decades and 
matching them with the blind and visually impaired wants to make sure the 
dogs are taken care of properly, I'm okay with that.  It does not threaten 
my status within society.  I would expect them to follow the same policies 
with fully sighted persons.

>
> No one has given me the answer to the basic question of what
> advantage does withholding transfer ownership to the blind person afford
> either party that is not provided for by law. The answer the correct 
> answer
> and the one the training programs will not give us is that such a practice
> gives them the right to interfere in our lives without justification, 
> cause,
> or due process. The primary advantage ownership offers is the right to due
> process and, therefore, the freedom from illegal interference. If guide 
> dog
> training programs would not, as they assert, repossess a dog without 
> cause,
> why are they unwilling to afford us the remedies of law? I believe there 
> is
> no other answer than the one I have tendered.

I suspect that if you contacted them, the organizations would give you an 
answer.  But the challenge of strongly held beliefs is that they can 
sometimes close a person off to an answer they don't like.

>
> I know this stand will garner a counterpoint discussion. In this
> discussion, I would like to explore the answer to the fundamental question 
> I
> have posed. So, to be clear, I would like to know what advantage the 
> policy
> of withholding transfer ownership of a guide dog upon completion of 
> training
> affords either party that is not afforded by law and its due process. 
> Simply
> restating the arguments that we have the right to go elsewhere if we do 
> not
> like the policy or that the training program is giving us this wonderful 
> dog
> at no cost is not, in my mind, a sufficient response.

In my mind, it is.

Ownership is a legal
> agreement and, if the discussion does not address the question, it is not
> relevant. I look forward to reading replies!

And to accpet and use a dog without ownerhship is also a legal agreement, 
one entered into by informed adults who know the conditions and limitations 
of the covenant before they sign it.