[nagdu] On the subject of gifts

[Michael Hingson]

Hi all,

 

I thought I should more clarify my comments about guide dogs as gifts. Using
dictionary definitions guide dogs are gifts on several levels. Of course
donors give money to guide dog schools to provide dogs, or at least they do
in part. Guide dog schools attract many donors simply with the photos of
"those wonderful and cuddly puppies" that they prominently display on their
web sites and in their mailings.

 

Puppy raisers' gifts are of their time, talents, and skills to raise puppies
and turn them into future guide dogs. There is no doubt that they give and
give well.

 

Staff while paid give a tremendous amount of their time and skills as well.
They also give their wisdom to students.

 

Students also give and receive. Of course we receive the trained guide dogs.
We give of our knowledge, wisdom, and expertise on blindness. Some schools
appreciate our gifts while others do not demonstrate as much appreciation
for the gifts of their students.

 

My concern is that we take the gift concept too far nor in the wrong way.
While I appreciate all the gifts that go into the making and providing of a
guide dog I do not believe it is necessary to feel so grateful to GDB that I
should sacrifice my basic philosophy and principles. Former president Jimmy
Carter once said that "we must adjust to changing times while holding to
unchanging principles". This is as true for guide dog schools as it is for
anyone else. The basic tenants of a guide dog school include raising and
training the best guide dogs possible. They also include providing those
same guide dogs to qualified users who will treat the dogs well and use them
to the best of their abilities.

 

The very fact that we are having this discussion on our NAGDU list now shows
how times are a changing, as it were. More and more consumers are realizing
that there is a basic disconnect between how most guide dog schools operate
and the basic philosophy of blind people. When I hear from someone employed
by a guide dog school who tells me that the school cannot give ownership of
its dogs to students or that there needs to be a waiting period simply
because the school has a responsibility to its donors then I can only
believe that the school has not done a good job of educating its donors or
it has a basic distrust of the abilities and commitments of its graduates.

 

When I hear from school staff that not providing immediate unconditional
ownership to graduates is necessary in order to give all parties time to
insure that the match works I again have been forced to conclude that there
really is a lack of confidence or a distrust on the part of the staff. Even
if the match does not work out during the first year or two of the life of
the user/guide dog team the school could have a mechanism whereby the
student can return the dog to the school for retraining should that be the
appropriate way to go. The real way to accomplish the return of a dog to the
school should involve a defined process during which the school and student
work together to determine whether or not the team match really didn't work
out. The crux of this process should be the working relationship between the
school and student to address the issue.

 

When I hear from consumers that their school came and took away their guide
dog without any notice or without giving reason for the repossession I
cringe. No matter how valid the concern of the guide dog school there must
be a process the school should follow to address the issue and that process
needs to include full disclosure and discussion with the consumer. Once
schools graduate guide dog teams they should not be permitted to have power
over the consumers they serve. If a school believes there is a problem it
cannot be permitted to act unilaterally, but it must adhere to policies and
procedures that protect the rights of the consumers they are supposed to
serve.

 

Most schools do not have a true "due process", or whatever you wish to call
it, through which all parties work fully together to address issues. There
is no excuse for this. If guide dog schools really were confident in their
consumer relationship choices then they should provide unconditional
ownership and take all steps to treat their graduates as intelligent and
mature individuals. In fact, today I have heard of several situations where
guide dog teams have graduated which should not have ever been allowed to go
home. The burden should always be on the schools to produce the best teams,
teams that will work unless something unexpected or unanticipated happens to
damage the working relationship. An advantage of providing unconditional
ownership would, I think, be that schools will really do their best to not
fill beds but graduate the best teams possible.

 

I used earlier in another email thread a comparison between state provided
equipment and the process of providing guide dogs. I believe even after
seeing several responses on the NAGDU list that this example is apt. Even if
the state can come and take away equipment there is a process by which the
state may be called upon to defend its action. The guide dog schools do not
generally provide such a mechanism. Private or not guide dog schools should
not be permitted to operate with impunity. USC and Notre Dame as private
colleges have to follow many of the same rules as UCLA, a state funded
institution. Guide dog schools also should evolve and follow rules that
protect consumers and help educate their donors about how and why they
should operate in such a manner should the issue come up. I suspect that in
reality most donors might negatively react if they truly discovered the poor
attitudes that many guide dog schools display toward the consumers they
"serve".

 

It is time for guide dog schools to recognize the validity of the philosophy
of blind people that we should be valued as highly as the rest of the
population. It is no longer reasonable for guide dog schools to operate
under the assumption that we cannot take full responsibility for our lives
and that these same schools must "protect" their investment. If guide dog
schools are producing less than desired teams and if some higher than
expected percentage of guide dogs are being returned or taken back by the
schools then these schools should not put the burden on the users, but
rather the burden should go to the schools that should reevaluate their
training and admissions procedures. 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Michael Hingson

 

The Michael Hingson Group, INC.

"Speaking with Vision"

Michael Hingson, President

(415) 827-4084

info at michaelhingson.com

Please help us empower blind people and their families with your support at
www.gofundme.com/michaelhingson

To order Michael Hingson's new book, Running With Roselle, and check on
Michael Hingson's speaking availability for your next event please visit:

www.michaelhingson.com

 

To purchase your own portrait of Roselle painted by the world's foremost
animal artist, Ron Burns, please visit  <http://www.ronburns.com/roselle>
http://www.ronburns.com/roselle