[NAGDU] Opinion on SEGD Mental Illness Policy

[NAGDU President]

Sandra,

	There is another word for what you term "unfair assumptions". I
think the ADA terms it "discrimination". Whether those discriminatory
practices are levied against those of us who are blind or have other
conditions, they are, nonetheless, illegal. Even training programs are
required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and modify their
policies, practices, and procedures to allow an individual with a disability
access to their programs and services without discrimination. I have been
talking to an attorney to find out what we can do about this. I believe that
screening out individuals based upon mental illness, past criminal history,
and socioeconomic status could be found illegal. I think we need to take a
serious look at this to see if it is based upon evidence or conjecture.

Fraternally yours,
Marion


Marion Gwizdala, President
National Association of Guide Dog Users Inc. (NAGDU)
National Federation of the Blind
(813) 626-2789
President at NAGDU.ORG


The National Federation of the Blind knows that blindness is not the
characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise
expectations because low expectations create barriers between blind  people
and our dreams. You can live the life you want! Blindness is not what holds
you back.


-----Original Message-----
From: NAGDU [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of S L Johnson via
NAGDU
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 12:00 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Cc: S L Johnson
Subject: Re: [NAGDU] Opinion on SEGD Mental Illness Policy

Hello:

I think the guide dog schools need to be more open to applicants with all
kinds of problems in addition to blindness.  When I was applying for a dog
three years ago I found that schools denied my application based on the fact
that I have multiple sclerosis.  They just assumed that I could not handle a
dog even though I have done it for over forty years.  They said I could not
walk far enough or fast enough and would not have enough strength to handle
a dog.  Of course that was not true because at that time I was currently
working with Tara my genital calm female golden.  What they should have said
was that in their program all their dogs were too strong and too difficult
to control for someone with physical limitations.  The fault was with those
schools not with my ability to work a guide dog successfully.  I am sure
that unfair assumptions get many applicants denied from most of the schools
all the time.  Fortunately for me, Pilot Dogs felt that they had a very
gentle golden for me.  I knew from our first walk that Eva was a perfect
match.  Despite many days when I am not able to get out with her, she
continues to be an excellent guide.  That goes against all the schools
thinking that the dogs need to be walked for miles every day or else their
work will suffer.

However, in all fairness to the schools I have also seen the negative side
of giving a dog to people with mental illness.  As a disability advocate for
an Independent Living Center I had the unfortunate task to report one woman
to her guide dog school for abusing  her dog.  On another occasion a client
of mine with bipolar finally decided to get a dog to hopefully give her more
independence.  Several schools turned her down due to her mental illness. 
Finally one small school decided to take a chance.  They recommended home
training so she could still have her counseling appointments and support
from me as well as friends and family.  Our hope was that training at home
would lessen the amount of stress for her.  I met with her and the trainer
several times during her at home training to be sure I was aware of any
concerns he might have.  She seemed to be doing fine and then suddenly one
night I got an emergency call from her telling me she was going to just
leave the dog out in the street if I did not come and get him.  I
immediately took a cab o her home and took the dog to my home and kept him
for the weekend until a trainer could come to get him.  The school thanked
me for making sure the dog was safe and taken care of.  That school said
they would never take a chance with another person with mental illness.

I have seen all kinds of people with various secondary disabilities be
successful with a guide dog.  I have seen students with brain injuries,
learning disabilities, emotional problems and mental illnesses as well as
all kinds of medical and physical problems  work a guide dog successfully. 
All it takes is a school willing to take a chance and a trainer who has the
understanding and willingness to put in whatever extra time and effort it
may take to get that student and dog working well together.  It also takes
the right kind of dog for that person.  Whether it is a medical condition or
a mental illness I feel that the schools should at least consider giving a
person a chance.  Every case is different and should be decided on a case by
case basis instead of a policy of no absolutely not,we will never consider
anyone with that diagnosis.  A few schools told me they only wanted to
accept those who they knew would be successful.  How do they know a person
will be successful or not until they let them try?  The schools need to
realize that as we age we can develop some medical or physical problems. 
That does not mean that we have lost the ability to work with a guide dog. 
It means that we might need a calmer more gentle dog instead of the
rambunctious dogs we worked twenty thirty or forty years ago.  The world of
all disabled people is changing.  We are out and about in society regardless
of our disabilities.  There will continue to be applicants with other health
concerns who deserve a chance to get a guide dog.  As guide dog users and as
part of a strong advocy group we must insist that the schools not make
automatic judgments against applicants without giving that person a chance
to provide additional documentation and other proof that they would benefit
from and work successfully with a guide dog.

Sandra Johnson and Eva
SLJohnson at comcast.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Cindy Ray via NAGDU
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 9:48 PM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Cc: Cindy Ray
Subject: Re: [NAGDU] Opinion on SEGD Mental Illness Policy

Hi, Ash,

I have thought of these things, too, but in all fairness, people know what
they know and are ignorant about other conditions, illnesses, and the like. 
That makes sense, too, if you think about it, but it is certainly a hard
pill to swallow. I believe that the whole thing is based on ignorance. It is
also extremely discriminatory. People still tend to look at people who have
mental illness the way they did in the 1800s and before. Just as blind
people who have socially unacceptable behaviors because no one trained them
properly create a problem for the rest, so those people who have not fared
well with a bipolar condition color life for those of you who are successful
in society. Bipolar conditions are lumped in with all other mental
illnesses, and I am sure they have differing characteristics. As soon as
someone goes out there shooting people or whatever violent crime they do,
people immediately believe them to be mentally ill. It is so wrong and
shouldn't be that way, but people do that. I believe that you should be
welcomed into the school; then if you do something that isn't acceptable,
which you would not do, you could be sent home. That's what would be done
with someone else. If a man came to the school and was sexually
inappropriate with a woman and she complained, he would be going home. He
had the benefit of the doubt when he came there though. The same should be
true for you and for other people with a bipolar condition. Certainly, if
there is a policy against your coming there, they owe you the response to
your queries, but you ought to be able to go there. Have you had this
experience with other guide dog programs? I think it is shocking the lack of
compassion we all have for people who have other disabilities from our own,
and I suspect that we should begin working on it. Maybe others will weigh in
on this and have ideas.
Cindy Lou Ray
cindyray at gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: NAGDU [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ash Foster via
NAGDU
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 1:49 PM
To: nagdu at nfbnet.org
Cc: Ash Foster <lake_fos at yahoo.com>
Subject: [NAGDU] Opinion on SEGD Mental Illness Policy

blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px
#715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important;
background-color:white !important; } Hello. I rarely post to the list
although I very much enjoy it! I do hope it is OK I post this here. It is
truly a draft I just wrote, but wanted to express something thaf has
bothered me for a while, now. I mean no offense.
*
Coming into a community of individuals who all are, by social standards,
disabled, it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that this group of
people will inherently be more accepting and understanding of other types of
disabilities, illnesses, and conditions. It's equally as easy to fall victim
to thinking that organizations serving this particular population will be
less likely to target and discriminate against those among that populations
who have co-existing conditions. It's easy to believe this surely must be a
group of individuals among which certain stigmas and ignorance will be less
prevalent.
And when reality hits, you quickly realize that simply because this
community is made up of individuals sharing a common condition and those
whose work it is to provide services to them, this means little when it
comes to the understanding and education about anything other than their own
affairs. People are people, so they say.
To make this a bit more relatable: please imagine if you will a guide dog
training program which states in its paperwork and on its website that
anyone with diabetes was not welcome to apply or a school which refuses
communication with all individuals ever having suffered a stroke. This would
be questioned and sincerely concerning for many, would it not? Imagine,
then, the same school refused to engage in dialogue with a sincerely
concerned, polite, respectful potential client or consumer of its services? 
Would this be offensive? I am this person. I have been gaslighted and
ignored and have remained silent long enough. I can imagine few places, few
non-profits which would be so broadly supported in blatant discriminatory
behavior while hanging a virtual sign stating,  "you may qualify for our
services, but because you are blind, we deem you incapable of responsible
behavior." This would not be accepted, tacitly accepted and meekly complied
with because individuals so feared being cast out by that organization they
were willing to remain complicit in this behavior by their silence?
Why, then, is it acceptable for a prominent guide dog school to publicly and
blatantly refuse to even consider admitting applicants who have a particular
mental illness? In this case, that condition is Bipolar Disorder. Bipolar
Disorder, as most conditions do, has varying degrees and varying
presentations. Some are wholly disabled by it, while a far greater number of
individuals with it are upstanding, capable members of society. So what is
the justification for the reluctance to speak of, let alone address head-on,
the ban imposed by Southeastern Guide Dogs on individuals with this
disorder? As a former lawyer, I underwent quite a bit of background
examination and ethical interviews during law school to establish whether I
was capable of upholding the mores and ethics to which attorneys are
required, ideally, to adhere. I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder after
the conclusion of my first semester of law school, but was not met with a
blanket proscription on the practice of law; instead, I remained an equal to
my classmates, a peer. Thus, as I underwent the same scrutiny as did my
fellow students, questions of the severity and impact of Bipolar Disorder
arose during an interview with a routine, pre-graduation panel of senior
attorneys arose. Those questions were answered and I was deemed ethically
capable of the practice of law. My question, then, is: how is it possible
that the same person who was deemed fit to practice law, potentially to go
on to personally handle the futures and fates of individuals and
corporations alike, is automatically deemed unfit to even potentially handle
a guide dog trained by SEGD?
I have written the school itself twice, and twice -- presumably because I
have a condition which, despite being controlled and well-managed, instantly
means I am unfit, unwell, unsound, and unwanted by that school -- my queries
have gone unanswered. They can, of course, continue to ignore me. But unless
this opinion is widely held, why is mine the sole voice expressing concern
with this policy?

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
_______________________________________________
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/cindyray%40gmail.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/sljohnson25%40comcast.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