[NAGDU] Introducing a New Member

Thu Nov 30 17:09:20 UTC 2017

Tami,

What a great response.

Bree, let me introduce myself. I am the vice president of NAGDU and have been a guide dog user since 1964. I also happen to be working as the mid-Atlantic region sales manager for a Fortune 500 company on September 11, 2001. My office was on the 78th floor of Tower one of the World Trade Center. I and my guide dog, Roselle, escaped and survived.

you are most welcome here and you are asking the right questions. Tami has echoed the sentiments of many of us here.

I want to take a moment to address the issue of blindness and when one is "blind". My best way to discuss this is to include here a brief article written by one of the past presidents of the National Federation of the Blind, Kenneth Jernigan. In the 1960s and 1970s Dr. Jernigan was not only the president of the Federation, but he also directed the most successful orientation center for the blind in the country. I think his article will best help define blindness in a way most of us accept and embrace and in a manner you may find helpful.

After the article you will find my contact information. Feel free to write me off list or even call to talk. We all are with you and want to help.

"A Definition of Blindness
by Kenneth Jernigan

Kenneth Jernigan
Editor�s Note: It may seem odd to begin a special issue about low vision with a definition of blindness, but sometimes the fastest route to a destination is not the most direct. As you read this issue, you will find the words low vision, visually impaired, partially sighted, legally blind (and maybe a few others) used interchangeably with the word blind. Over the decades professionals have often attempted to establish definitions for these terms based on a hierarchy of degree of vision loss; all of those attempts failed. In other words, there is no one accepted definition of, for example, �low vision� or �visually impaired.� But the National Federation of the Blind does not view this as a problem. Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, president of the NFB from 1968 to 1986 and an active leader of the organization right up to his death in 1998, explained it this way:
Before we can talk intelligently about the problems of blindness or the potentialities of blind people, we must have a workable definition of blindness. Most of us are likely familiar with the generally accepted legal definition: visual acuity of not greater than 20/200 in the better eye with correction or a field not subtending an angle greater than 20 degrees. But this is not really a satisfactory definition. It is, rather, a way of recognizing in medical and measurable terms something which must be defined not medically or physically but functionally.
Putting to one side for a moment the medical terminology, what is blindness? Once I asked a group of high school students this question, and one of them replied--apparently believing that she was making a rather obvious statement--that a person is blind if she �can�t see.� When the laughter subsided, I asked the student if she really meant what she said. She replied that she did. I then asked her whether she would consider a person blind who could see light but who could not see objects--a person who would bump into things unless she used a cane, a dog, or some other travel aid and who would, if she depended solely on the use of her eyesight, walk directly into a telephone pole or fire plug. After some little hesitation the student said that she would consider such a person to be blind. I agreed with her and then went on to point out the obvious-that she literally did not mean that the definition of blindness was to be unable to see.
I next told this student of a man I had known who had normal (20/20) visual acuity in both eyes but who had such an extreme case of sensitivity to light that he literally could not keep his eyes open at all. The slightest amount of light caused such excruciating pain that the only way he could open his eyes was by prying them open with his fingers. Nevertheless, this person, despite the excruciating pain he felt while doing it, could read the eye chart without difficulty. The readings showed that he had �normal sight.� This individual applied to the local Welfare Department for Public Assistance to the Blind and was duly examined by their ophthalmologist. The question I put to the student was this: �If you had been the ophthalmologist, would you have granted the aid or not?�
Her answer was, �Yes.�
�Remember,� I told her, �under the law you are forbidden to give aid to any person who is not actually blind. Would you still have granted the assistance?� The student said that she would. Again, I agreed with her, but I pointed out that, far from her first facetious statement, what she was saying was this: It is possible for one to have �perfect sight� and still in the physical, literal sense of the word be blind.
I then put a final question to the student. I asked her whether if a sighted person were put into a vault which was absolutely dark so that he could see nothing whatever, it would be accurate to refer to that sighted person as a blind man. After some hesitation and equivocation the student said, �No.� For a third time I agreed with her. Then I asked her to examine what we had established.
1. To be blind does not mean that one cannot see. (Here again I must interrupt to say that I am not speaking in spiritual or figurative terms but in the most literal sense of the word.)
2. It is possible for an individual to have �perfect sight� and yet be physically and literally blind.
3. It is possible for an individual not to be able to see at all and still be a sighted person.
What, then, in light of these seeming contradictions is the definition of blindness? In my way of thinking it is this: One is blind to the extent that the individual must devise alternative techniques to do efficiently those things which he would do if he had normal vision. An individual may properly be said to be �blind� or a �blind person� when he has to devise so many alternative techniques--that is, if he is to function efficiently--that his pattern of daily living is substantially altered. It will be observed that I say alternative not substitute techniques, for the word substitute connotes inferiority, and the alternative techniques employed by the blind person need not be inferior to visual techniques. In fact, some of them are superior. The usually accepted legal definition of blindness already given (that is, visual acuity of less than 20/200 with correction or a field of less than 20 degrees) is simply one medical way of measuring and recognizing that anyone with better vision than the amount mentioned in the definition will (although he may have to devise some alternative techniques) likely not have to devise so many such techniques as to alter substantially his patterns of daily living. On the other hand, anyone with less vision than that mentioned in the legal definition will usually (I emphasize the word usually, for such is not always the case) need to devise so many such alternative techniques as to alter quite substantially his patterns of daily living.
It may be of some interest to apply this standard to the three cases already discussed:
First, what of the person who has light perception but sees little or nothing else? In at least one situation he can function as a sighted person. If, before going to bed, he wished to know whether the lights are out in his home, he can simply walk through the house and �see.� If he did not have light perception, he would have to use some alternative technique--touch the bulb, tell by the position of the switch, have some sighted person give him the information, or devise some other method. However, this person is still quite properly referred to as a blind person. This one visual technique which he uses is such a small part of his overall pattern of daily living as to be negligible in the total picture. The patterns of his daily living are substantially altered. In the main he employs alternative techniques to do those things which he would do with sight if he had normal vision--that is, he does if he functions efficiently.
Next, let us consider the person who has normal visual acuity but cannot hold his eyes open because of his sensitivity to light. He must devise alternative techniques to do anything which he would do with sight if he had normal vision. He is quite properly considered to be a �blind person.�
Finally, what of the sighted person who is put into a vault which has no light? Even though she can see nothing at all, she is still quite properly considered to be a �sighted person.� She uses the same techniques that any other sighted person would use in a similar situation. There are no visual techniques which can be used in such circumstances. In fact, if a blind person found herself in such a situation, she might very well have a variety of techniques to use.
I repeat that, in my opinion, blindness can best be defined not physically or medically but functionally or sociologically. The alternative techniques which must be learned are the same for those born blind as for those who become blind as adults. They are quite similar (or should be) for those who are totally blind or nearly so and those who are �partially sighted� and yet are blind in the terms of the usually accepted legal definition. In other words, I believe that the complex distinctions which are often made between those who have partial sight and those who are totally blind, between those who have been blind from childhood and those who have become blind as adults are largely meaningless. In fact, they are often harmful since they place the wrong emphasis on blindness and its problems. Perhaps the greatest danger in the field of work for the blind today is the tendency to be hypnotized by jargon." 

Best Regards,

Michael Hingson

The Michael Hingson Group, INC.
"Speaking with Vision"
Michael Hingson, President
(415) 827-4084
info at michaelhingson.com
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

-----Original Message-----
From: NAGDU [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tami Jarvis via NAGDU
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:37 AM
To: Bree R. via NAGDU <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Tami Jarvis <tami at poodlemutt.com>
Subject: Re: [NAGDU] Introducing a New Member

Bree,

Welcome. Yes, you've come to the right place. I'm Tami, working my second owner-trained poodle guide. I have retinitis pigmentosa, so have done the whole progressive vision loss into blindness thing. Well, not the whole thing, since I'm still not totally blind, but I am working on it and will get there when I get there. /lol/

Other people with extensive experience with dogs from the various training programs will give you good information. In general, they do provide dogs to people with partial vision loss, though that was not always the case. Now the operating assumption is more that if you need a cane, you need a dog for the same reasons if you choose dog over cane.

Dealing with vision loss means dealing with a lot of feelings, and everyone does it their own way. Being in an in-between state where you don't know where you fit in comes with additional feelings and confusions. Your feelings are your own, and how you deal with them is for you to do. However... It sounds like you've been dealt a heavy guilt load from somewhere, including by the case worker who told you you should be grateful. Wrong. Just... wrong. People in the resource fields will tell you that, and usually what it means is that they don't want to spend money on you, so they're hoping you'll go away and shut up. What they'll be telling the totally blind clients is that they can't do anything anyway, so the agency needs to spend the resources on people with some vision. So, if you feel either guilty or grateful for reasons of your own, that's entirely normal as part of the adjustment process. 
So is feeling angry, bitter, maybe okay, and lots of other things. But if you can avoid letting someone else tell you what you ought to feel, then that's a good.

As for using a guide dog when you have good cane mobility skills, it really is a matter of choice. A dog is great with some of the areas you mention, and I definitely prefer navigating those same sorts of difficult places with the dog. The dog does not come with an off switch, however, so you can't just stick in the corner out of the way when you get home. The cane does not have off days or suddenly decide to go sniff the bushes over there while neatly convincing you it is taking you around an obstacle. A cane also won't see that quiet car blowing through the red light and zooming towards the crosswalk where you are walking, nor will it knock you back and back again so the car speeds by inches in front of you instead of right over you. And so on. The decision for most people seems to come down to a weighing of pros and cons and an examination of lifestyle and preferences.

There are something like 13 programs to choose from (someone will correct me if I'm wrong on the number), so there is good availability of guide dogs. I've also heard the bit about not taking a guide dog away from someone who really needs one, but that's, well, bunk. First, you really need a cane, so you really need a guide dog. Second, if you do decide on a dog and are matched with one, then it is true that someone else who needs a guide dog will not get that dog. That person will get a different dog. If you have partial vision and want a guide dog, people will lay that guilt trip on you, though, along with all the others. 
Sigh. Considering you own needs versus those of others when consuming finite resources is laudable, but I think it is important to remember that if the resources are made available for blind people and you are a blind person, then they are available for you if you need them. It's usually people trying to hoard those resources who will tell you otherwise. If you were totally blind, the excuses would be different is all. Sigh.

Anyway, that's just my take, and you will hear many others and get lots of information to filter through as you make your decision about what is best for you. Do feel free to let us know how you decide, either way.

Tami

On 11/29/2017 12:41 AM, Bree R. via NAGDU wrote:
> Thank you for letting me join your list. I don't know if this is a list that can help me. Or if I belong here. I think I want to at least try to get some more info about guide dogs before I decide whether or not a guide dog would help me with travel.
> 
> I finished mobility training through ACBVI before I moved last spring. I met a few people who had guide dogs and I wondered if they were even an option for me. I know I should talk to the guide dog schools to ask but it's intimidating since what if they just say no & I'm wasting their time.
> 
> I don't think or don't know if I should even try because I have done mobility training and it helped a lot. I don't think I have to have a guide dog to be safe. Or take someone's dog who needs them more than me. Mostly because my better eye I can see out of is corrected or can be to 20/70. I think that I would not think of a guide dog if I could see enough to not use a cane & if the people I met didn't make me wonder.
> 
> 
> ACBVI said it is low vision but not blindness & I know guide dogs are for people who are really are blind. I just can't use what I can see very well I guess is how to explain it because what I see doesn't match what is there. I don't have RP but it's similar they said except there's just rod and cone dystrophy and mostly it's a male condition so they didn't know what was going on for a long time. I wear glasses over contract lenses which is how I can see 20/70 in one eye and it's like 20/200 on the other. My glasses are made with crystals and they're supposed to help them work together but it doesn't always work and sometimes makes it worse. I am night blind since I was a kid and have amblyopia where my right eye won't look straight and also photophobia. I think if I could see 20/70 really like 20/70 is then I wouldn't need a cane even it's just it is not the same trying to walk or get around as it is to read letters on a chart.
> 
> The counselor at the last session I had with Voc Rehab told me my vision is really not bad at all and to be grateful and I am. I think that is why I don't want to call and talk to guide dog schools because I feel guilty.
> 
> I wanted to ask someone with a guide dog though if I really couldn't try to have a guide dog. I remembered the name of the NFB from something a while ago so I found a google result for your list when I searched NFB and guide dogs.
> 
> I hope it's ok for me to ask this here. I mean I know Im glad I can still see and all and I hope I don't keep having worse vision but I'm 27 and it has been getting worse for many years now. I feel bad though if I sound ungrateful. I'm really not. I just wonder if it is true that I cannot try to get a guide dog and that they are for only totally blind people. I sort of wish I could try to have one now because it seems like it would be much better to travel and to not have to run into something to know its there with my cane and to move around things a dog would see especially in the winter when it's hard to tell where curbs and roads are and the snow makes it hard to find landmarks.
> 
> I hope it isnt breaking any rules for me to post here and thank you. I am nervous as you maybe can tell.
> 
> Bree
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/tami%40poodlemutt.c
> om
> 

_______________________________________________
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/mike%40michaelhingson.com