Category Archives: Uncategorized

Signal Boost: Sexuality & Access Project Survey

Sexuality and Access Project Survey

The Sexuality and Access Project is looking for people who use attendant services as well as attendants to participate in an anonymous survey.

The survey is part of this two-year project, funded by the Ontario Trillium Foundation. The goal of the project is to give Ontarians with disabilities greater control over their lives by providing them and their personal service attendants with the skills and knowledge to protect and develop their sexual health and safety.

There are two surveys. One is for persons with disabilities who use attendant services. The other is for attendants.

If you are in either of these categories, or you know someone who is, please complete the survey or pass the information along.

To take a survey online, please follow one of the links below. Each link will take you directly to the survey named:
Sexuality and Access Survey for persons with disabilities
Sexuality and Access Survey for attendants
DEADLINE: January 31, 2010

If you need assistance in filling out a survey, or prefer to participate in a phone survey, please contact Fran Odette.

To learn more about the project or to receive a version of the online survey in alternate format, contact:

Fran Odette, Project Coordinator
416-968-3422 Ext. 30
f.odette@gmail.com

This project is done in partnership with the Centre for Independent Living in Toronto, Niagara Centre for Independent Living, and Independent Centre and Network.

Quickpress: Upcoming Carnivals!

11th Carnival of Feminists, focusing on Gender Across Borders, is accepting submissions until January 5!

The 62nd Disability Blog Carnival will be at Uppity Crip/Finding My Way, and the theme is holidays! Deadline for submissions is January 11th.

The 5th Asian Women’s Blog Carnival, with the theme of Who I Am When I’m (not) With You, is accepting submissions until February 12th.

The next Down Under Feminists Carnival is planned for 5th January, 2010, and hosted by PharaohKatt at Something More Than Sides. Optional theme: Feminism and Childcare. (So, breastfeeding, parental leave, adoption, childcare as feminism…) Submissions to pharaohkatt at gmail dot com for those who can’t access blogcarnival.

I’m always happy to signal-boost Carnivals, and am not under the mistaken impression that I know all of them. Poke me to remind me of relevant carnivals you know of!

Does Outright Speculation Make This Disabled Feminist Angry?

Answer: Yes.

Let’s talk about this piece-of-crap article recently published on that oh-so-“liberal” news n’ culture site, Salon.com. I’m prefacing this post with a warning for ableist language and concepts on the part of the article’s author, Rahul K. Parikh, M.D. The article begins as follows:

There was a time when a celebrity’s sudden death almost invariably meant illegal drugs…[a]nd so it seems with Brittany Murphy, the bubbly and bright actress who died of cardiac arrest at 32.

Yes, it seems. Point is, we don’t know much yet. There are other health-related issues or conditions that can lead to cardiac arrest, but is this acknowledged? Of course not! Parikh continues:

The coroner’s notes allegedly claim a pharmacopia in Murphy’s bathroom cabinet: Topamax (for seizures or migraines), methylprednisolone (a steroid), fluoxetine (an antidepressant), Klonopin (for anxiety), carbamazepine (for seizures or bipolar disorder), Ativan (for anxiety), Vicoprofen (pain reliever), propranolol (for hypertension, migraines or anxiety), Biaxin (an antibiotic), and hydrocodone (a narcotic pain reliever). Gone are the days of shameful crack pipes and empty gin bottles.

OH MY GOD, EVERYBODY PANIC.

Murphy’s medications, like those of [Heath] Ledger and Anna Nicole Smith, are on the shelves of your local drugstore, available with a simple trip to the doctor — or doctors — whom you merely need to convince that you need the stuff. Did one doctor prescribe her those meds? Did 10? We don’t yet know. But as a doctor myself, I just kept wondering (and not for the first time): What if doctors were more like librarians? Would Brittany Murphy still be alive?

Cue scary music! THE DANGER IS ON THE SHELVES OF YOUR LOCAL DRUGSTORE. Nevermind that people with chronic pain conditions and disabilities have to jump through numerous, often ridiculous hoops just to get, say, a month’s supply of medications that help them function and/or live life to the fullest extent possible. As one of these people, I am of the opinion that Parikh is being rather disingenuous here; these drugs, at least for us “average” folk with chronic pain issues, are usually not easy to obtain.

After nattering about how the medical field should follow the example of public libraries when it comes to monitoring people and their books meds, he continues:

One of the many negative consequences of such fragmentation is how ridiculously easy it can be to get drugs. Most doctors know patients who have desperately angled to get a prescription they don’t need, usually highly addictive pain medicines like Percocet or OxyContin. This is what we call “doctor shopping,” hopping from one physician to the next until they find someone willing to write a script. When the supply dries up, they go to another doctor, and then another. One 53-year-old man in California visited 183 doctors and 47 pharmacies in one year to support his addiction to painkillers.

Hey, nice use of anecdata there! What on earth does one 53 year-old guy in California have to do with Brittany Murphy’s situation? As for “most doctors” knowing a patient who has “angled” for meds they “don’t need” (who makes that judgement, I wonder?): cry me a goddamn river. The endless Helen Lovejoy-gasping about ADDICTION!!1 in fact makes it incredibly hard for some of us who need these medications to obtain them, and no amount of 1984-esque War is Peace anecdata–from someone, no less, who is supposed to help people in pain as part of his chosen occupation–is going to change that.

In short, the experiences of people with chronic pain are going be different than those of an able-bodied doctor, but nowhere is this acknowledged in this article–nor is it mentioned in many larger conversations about  painkillers and (possible) ADDICTION!!11.

Most of us who need these medications do not have the energy to doctor-shop. I do not wish to deny that painkiller addiction is a serious problem; it is, for some. Sadly, these sorts of “conversations” on the specter of supposedly widespread PAINKILLER ADDICTION!!!1–much like those focusing on the OBESITY CRISIS!!11–tend to focus entirely too much attention on extreme cases and anecdata, leaving out those who need these medications for legitimate medical reasons, and, I might add, some of whom spend a great portion of time proving said legitimacy in order to show that they are not addicts or doctor-shoppers.

But if “preventing” ADDICTION!11 in able-bodied people via endless hand-wringing about who “really” needs these drugs versus who doesn’t is the number one priority here, that is a problem. Yet again, the needs of those who are judged by society as most “important” or productive or fitting into able-bodied society are taken seriously, and the needs of those who do not fit this mold–because they need painkillers for actual pain and are therefore bad/unproductive/just a bunch of whiners–are ignored, or worse, actively shamed and castigated for things or circumstances that they cannot control.

And, as OuyangDan pointed out so eloquently on this very blog, there are a lot of things that we don’t know about Brittany Murphy’s death. Using her death as a poorly-researched, almost totally speculative “example” of the dangers of painkiller ADDICTION!!11 is not only tasteless, but it distracts from how ridiculously the concerns about painkillers, “legitimacy” and the specter of addiction are often framed by (mostly privileged) people who do not deal with these things in their daily lives.

Less infuriating: Many of the commenters seem to agree that this article and its “speculation” went too far, which is unusual for Salon commenters, as most of them tend to exemplify the worst of privileged white “liberalism” on a regular basis (as you would expect, this includes loads of abled privilege and the anecdata to back up their uninformed opinions).

Suggestive Sell

from Shopwiki:

Shoprider electric wheelchair at comparison-shopping store. Related Items tab suggests wooden dining chairs.

The top part of the image is the search result box, showing an electric wheelchair priced at $2900. The bottom part of the image is the “Related Items” tab, which shows a choice of inexpensive dining-room chairs. (If you scroll down on the original page, you will also find stools and benches.)

From IRC:

[lauredhel] Oh, those wheelchair users, what hobbies do they – oh.

[lauredhel] But they like to SIT, right? How about CHAIRS?

[meloukhia] Can always use more CHAIRS!

QuickPress: Disability Carnival!

Oh yay! I missed this earlier in the week, but The 61st Disability Blog Carnival is up at Writing Mental Illness!

As a writer who helps others write about their experiences with mental illness I’ve thought long and hard about what it means to tell about disability. Because there are many facets (many ways to tell, many different things to tell, and the difference between visible and invisible disabilities among others) to telling disability these posts represent a multiplicity of interpretations of the theme.

Carnival 62 will be hosted at Finding My Way.

Disabled & Sick: We’ll Manage

Don has Marfan’s syndrome. It’s a genetic condition that he was born with. It’s the cause of his height (he’s 6’10” tall, 2.09m), his overall build, the way his fingers are shaped. It’s also the cause of his intense chronic pain, his wheelchair use, and his risky heart condition. It’s a spectrum condition – some people don’t have the chronic pain, but do have serious issues with their eyes. Some people don’t know they have Marfan’s until they have an aortic aneurysm and drop dead at 22 with no warning. Don grew up thinking he wouldn’t make it to 25, and his 30th birthday is next month.

Don also has Cancer. His cardiac specialist noticed the lump in his thyroid last year, before his serious ear-related surgery [1. I like to joke about his having too many holes in his head, but it turns out the problems with his mastoid were so bad that he could have died from a brain infection. Don’s health is never having to say you’re exaggerating.], and the whole thing’s been weaving its complicated way through Nova Scotia’s health care system ever since. He had surgery to remove his thyroid in September, with a doctor who assured us not only that there should be no problems with his surgery [2. Don can no longer speak above a whisper.], but that he should fully recover in a week or two.

Don still hasn’t recovered from surgery.

My mental jury is still out on whether or not Cancer is a disability. I think Susan Wendall makes a pretty good argument for it, by talking about how people with Cancer go through both social stigma and a lot of pain of treatment, but I admit to not knowing anyone with Cancer who’s described it as a disability, and I’m big on self-identifying. In this case, though, I’m going with Cancer = sick, because it’s allegedly cured. Everything’s fine now.

Except for the bit where none of the doctors along the way have known how to deal with Don’s disability at all. It’s like they somehow missed “Disability 101” in Doctor School.

We had the doctor who decided to start bending Don’s fingers back with no warning, discussion, or permission, apparently just to see how far they’d bend back. How this is relevant to a thyroid consultation, I don’t know, but Show & Tell Marfan’s Syndrome is pretty shite behaviour when one’s waiting for a Cancer diagnosis. Similar stunts have happened so often – bringing in additional students so they get a chance to “see a classic Marfan’s Patient”, like he’s a specimen in a zoo, or having Don’s classic Marfan’s features pointed out and discussed at length, as though he’s not right there.

The technician who did Don’s chest x-ray (to make sure there were no clots of Cancer in his lungs) baby talked to him, we can only assume because of the wheelchair, since we haven’t been able to get anyone to actually acknowledge that happened, let alone that it was a problem.

When he went in for the ultrasound on his neck… Oh, gosh, where do I begin? With the wheelchair inaccessible waiting room (you can wait in the hall!), or the refusal to allow Don’s wheelchair to even be in the room when he was being examined? As though able-bodied people are asked all the time to leave their only means of getting away behind. Plus, you know, the refusal to believe either of us that it’s common for people to play Show & Tell Marfan’s Syndrome.

And then there’s Doctor Fail. Oh, Doctor Fail, I hate you so much. The fast recovery time you assured us would happen, even when we both emphasized how long it took Don to recover from surgery previously, because he has a chronic pain condition. The bit where you prescribed far too low a dosage of thyroid replacement medication for someone of Don’s size, to the point where his energy levels dipped so badly he couldn’t handle reading fanfic because the plots were too complicated for him to follow, and he couldn’t get out of bed at all. [3. The radiologist increased his dosage to five times the amount. That was weeks ago. He’s still recovering.] Or, hey, the bit where you insisted that all mailed-out appointments needed to be confirmed by phone – despite knowing that Don can’t talk on the phone anymore because of the damage your surgery did to his vocal cords.

The latest round of fail is the radiation therapy he needs in post-Cancer treatment. I don’t even know how to describe the level of care he will need for this. They will need him to come right back off the thyroid meds. They need him to not be within 6 feet of anyone for any length of time. They need him to shower every single day, and then clean the shower out immediately. They need every plate he touches to be washed immediately, and all of his clothing washed immediately after taking it off.

When Don tried to point out that this is not something he can do, even when his thyroid meds are working just fine [4. Don has a homecare worker because normal showering and the like isn’t something he can currently do without aid], the response was a very cheerful “Oh, you’ll manage!”

Y’all, we are not managing. I can’t tell you in words how much we are not managing.

If we were a household of two able-bodied people, these would still be problems, but they wouldn’t be as overwhelming and dangerous as they are. If we were both two people who didn’t have mental health conditions [5. Don has Chronic Depression/Unipolar Disorder something-or-other, and I have a diagnosed mental health condition that I chose to never speak of on the internet because even the comments here at FWD include people who have merrily informed one and all that women with my mental health condition are bad.] this might be a bit less dire than it is. But as it stands, this has become a very very serious problem, and one that the medical people we are dealing with seem completely unable to address at any level, or any point.

The latest, today, was the psychiatrist telling Don to just wait things out and see if the anti-depressant that hasn’t been working for months suddenly kicks in, so the suicidal thoughts and horrible guilt at “what a burden” he is (he’s not!) both go away. Like magic, I guess. Because it’s normal, I guess, to be depressed, disabled, and Cancerous, so we shouldn’t treat it.

Our family has been in a pretty bad state for months now, because of so many people along the way, including us, assuming we’ll manage, somehow.

The support services designed for families ‘dealing with Cancer’ are not designed to include families like ours. Don can’t leave the house much, because it’s winter, and uncleared snow can be a problem. I’ve been so swamped that I’ve been out of the house for 18 hours a day at least four days a week. Support groups and services don’t seem to consider ‘wheelchair’, ‘mental health condition’, ‘complicated family situation’.

And so, here we are. I don’t think this is some tiny crack we’ve managed to slip through, but a big gaping chasm that has a bridge that’s passable only if you’re “general population”.

I honestly don’t know what we’re going to do. I guess we’ll manage.

Injury versus disability

I have an injury – animal bites on my face, forearms and hands from a skirmish with a feral cat outside my office building. I’ve got quite a black eye with puncture wounds on my cheek, so my injuries are immediately visible. I’ve also got severe swelling in my left index finger so I can’t bend it or use it for anything, and bumping it against something sends extremely sharp pains through my hand that last for about half an hour.

I am having a fair amount of trouble with it. I can’t open jars or plastic packaging or use a can opener. I can’t hold the steering wheel very well with my left hand. I’m right handed so I can still use a pen and hold a fork and spoon, but my typing is totally jacked up – I can use the other fingers on my hand if I keep the injured finger extended, but that makes my hand go in an unfamiliar position and the rest of the muscles start cramping and aching if I do it for long, making me rely primarily on hunt n peck typing with my right hand. (I usually type over 120 words per minute, so this significantly slows me down.)

When people observe or hear about these functional impairments, they keep saying to me “oh well thank goodness this will heal. Imagine how it would be if you permanently lost the use of your finger!” and “well at least your face won’t be that wasy forever. Let’s hope it doesn’t scar.” They seem to regard these temporary injuries as a disability simulation of sorts and are reassuting me that I won’t continue to be this impaired or have this reduced functionality only because my injuries will heal.

I, on the other hand, feel that if these injuries were permanent disabilities, I’d have a lot easier time dealing with them. The problems I’m having are largely because it is a new situation for me and my habits and unconscious behaviours are all based on my assumption that my left index finger works fine. I haven’t had any time to develop the mental awareness or the physical abilities to compensate for the problems with that finger – if the other muscles in my left hand were more used to typing without that finger, I’m sure I’d be able to type more quickly and without as much pain in my left hand. Similarly, if my brain could remember that bumping left index finger leads to extreme pain, I wouldn’t have banged it against the car door every single time and I’d buy a purse with more organization capacity so I didn’t have to dig through it with both hands to find anything.

This isn’t to say that having this injury be permanent wouldn’t have long-term effects on my functional capacity. It just means that the functional effects of my temporary injury are in no way indicative of my functioning or my abilities were this a permanent disability. And that having this injury doesn’t teach me anything about what it would be like to have this disability.

The one aspect that has been eye opening for me is the demonstration of how entitled people feel to talk to you about visible injuries or disabilities. My finger isn’t that noticeable and I’m wearing long sleeves because of the weather, so only my facial injuries are visible – and boy are they visible. Even when wearing sunglasses to cover the worst of the bruised and swollen eye, the puncture wounds on my cheek are prominent. And in the day and a half since I was injured, I have been asked to explain “what’s up with my face” by virtually every stranger I’ve encountered. So much so that I’ve already started making up stories (my favorite: “I was being attacked by a vampire but I managed to deflect him so he bit my cheek instead of my neck.”). The feeling that my body is fodder for them to gawk at and demand explanations for is new to me, as my disabilities are usually not visible and I’m used to passing in public. While I don’t pretend this temporary experience in any way lets me know what it would be like to live as a person with a permanent visible disability, this is the only aspect of my injury experience that I feel is at all relevant to understanding the experience of disability.

Book Review: Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Has Undermined America by Barbara Ehrenreich

A word of caution: This review is going to be quite short, as I have been struggling with “getting words out” for the past few days. Regardless, I think this is an important book, and might be of interest to my fellow FWD-ers (bloggers and commenters!).

I touched upon the whole positive thinking movement (and why it offends me) at this very blog a while back; I’ve long had problems with the “Just think POSITIVE!” suggestion and attendant movement, and one piece that really got to the root of things, at least for me, was Ehrenreich’s 2001 essay, “Welcome to Cancerland,” which is about how positive thinking–bejewelled and be-ribboned with a heaping helping of traditional femininity and stereotypes about women, and particularly women who have survived breast cancer–has, for lack of a better word, swallowed the breast cancer “awareness” movement. [The essay is available at her website.] A revised version of the essay appears as the opening chapter to Bright-Sided, and Ehrenreich adds just enough salient facts to make reading the newer version worthwhile and not at all confusing to non-sciencey types like myself. (Ehrenreich has a PhD in Cell Biology.)

That said, the remainder of Bright-Sided proved to be a fast, engaging read. In fact, I wish it had been longer, and one chapter that could have used an expansion was the closing chapter on positive thinking’s effect on the recent U.S. economic crash. The book is also extremely U.S.-centric, but since positive thinking is one of those things that seems to have really taken flight in the North American consciousness, this is not particularly surprising. Unfortunately, with the exception of the breast cancer chapter, Ehrenreich does not specifically cover disability and/or chronic illness issues as they relate to the positive thinking movement. However, her book as a whole may have been designed to be rather “general” since the positive thinking movement impacts many people (for better or worse), not just those with disabilities. This generality is both a strength and a weakness, and I think Ehrenreich’s writing saves her points from being too non-specific.

I will leave you with a quote that stuck with me, from the book’s second chapter:

But in the world of positive thinking other people are not there to be nurtured or to provide unwelcome reality checks. They are only to nourish, praise and affirm. Harsh as this dictum sounds, many ordinary people adopt it as their creed, displaying wall plaques or bumper stickers showing the word “Whining” with a cancel sign through it. There seems to be a massive empathy deficit, which people respond to by withdrawing their own. No one has the time or patience for anyone else’s problems…When the gurus advise dropping “negative” people, they are also issuing a warning: smile and be agreeable, go with the flow–or prepare to be ostracized. (56-57)

Reading List: Mental Health Diversion Courts

Yes, this looks like our daily Recommended Reading posts that Anna does for us every day – but it’s different. Reading List is a selection of links around a single issue or topic, as a start for those interested in exploring it further. The initial edition, on mental health diversion courts, was sparked when I came across the first article:

Susan Thornton, “A court for mental illness,” Denver Post, Nov 15, 2009

History will be made in Colorado’s 18th Judicial District this week when Colorado’s first districtwide adult Mental Health Court will convene to hear the case of “Robert,” age 37. Robert has bipolar disorder. He frequently goes off his medication, hasn’t followed through with treatment plans, has attempted suicide, and has been hospitalized three times. He has several prior convictions for shoplifting, violating restraining orders and resisting arrest. Now he says he wants to figure out a better way to live, and has volunteered for the Mental Health Court.

The court is a specialized treatment court designed to divert nonviolent felony offenders who have a serious mental illness such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or major depression, as well as those with a combination of mental illness and substance abuse. It is not open to those with violent behavior or to sex offenders.

Most of the people who’ll come before the court have been repeatedly in and out of jail. They’ve been charged with minor offenses that result from their mental illness, things like being a public nuisance, drinking in public, and shoplifting. They’re charged with a felony because of the cost of items they’ve stolen or damaged. Usually they have been off their medications because they can’t afford them, and live in and out of shelters.

Each participant will have an intensive treatment plan, including case management and medications, and will be closely monitored by probation officers and mental health professionals. Treatment addresses the mental illness, recurring substance abuse and criminal thinking. There will be incentives for compliance, and sanctions for non-compliance that may include re-sentencing.

This article by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law gives a good overview of why the current use of the criminal court system to address mental illness is so problematic, including these statistics on the scope of the problem:

  • Approximately a quarter million individuals with severe mental illnesses are incarcerated at any given moment—about half arrested for non-violent offenses, such as trespassing or disorderly conduct.” This does not include more than half a million probationers with serious mental illnesses.
  • Sixteen percent of state and local inmates suffer from a mental illness and most receive no treatment beyond medication.”
  • During street encounters, police officers are almost twice as likely to arrest someone who appears to have a mental illness. A Chicago study of thousands of police encounters found that 47 percent of people with a mental illness were arrested, while only 28 percent of individuals without a mental illness were arrested for the same behavior.

The same Bazelon article also has a nice outline of the role of mental health courts (as well as detailed analyses of different models of these courts and recommendations for improvements):

From the criminal law perspective, two rationales underlie the therapeutic court approach: first, to protect the public by addressing the mental illness that contributed to the criminal act, thereby reducing recidivism, and second, to recognize that criminal sanctions, whether intended as punishments or deterrents, are neither effective nor morally appropriate when mental illness is a significant cause of the criminal act. The goals of mental health courts, then, are: 1) to break the cycle of worsening mental illness and criminal behavior that begins with the failure of the community mental health system and is accelerated by the inadequacy of treatment in prisons and jails; and 2) to provide effective treatment options instead of the usual criminal sanctions for offenders with mental illnesses.

There’s also a nice overview of the mental health courts at Frontline, from their series “The New Asylums,” devoted to the stories and issues of people with mental illness in state prisons. The site lets you watch the whole program online and provides a separate complete transcript. There’s also an interactive state-by-state map so you can find information on specific states.

One reason these courts are becoming increasingly popular is because of their fiscal effect – it is more difficult and expensive to incarcerate a person with mental illness than a neurotypical inmate. For the super-wonky, here’s a detailed report from RAND on the fiscal impact of a mental health in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. It found that the costs of providing treatment and services was more than offset by the savings in jail costs. The National Center for State Courts also has a great list of resources on these courts, including lots of studies on fiscal impact.

This is a big part of why there’s significant governmental support for these courts. The Federal Department of Justice provides assistance and resources to communities who want to begin mental health courts. The Council of State Governments Justice Center provides technical support and information to communities working with the DOJ, including a list of essential elements in a mental health court and a practical guide to mental health court design and implementation.

I am not nearly as familiar with court systems outside the US, but even some cursory googling shows that these exist in some model in places including South Australia, England (although the report notes they’re not achieving their potential), Canada, and, um, some places in the European Union.

I also include the significant caveat that the ideas behind and goals of these courts are only as good as their implementation, and that can vary a lot. Not every court is great and even if they worked perfectly, there would still be a lot of problems with the criminal justice system’s relationship with people with disabilities overall.

If you have information on mental health courts in other areas or other great resources, please drop them in the comments!