Dud: Another armchair psychiatrist.
What do you 'really know' about MCS?
Nothing, except mass media babble.
Paul
On Nov 12, 4:27=A0am, dudleybates <helengeerli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 7:54=A0pm, marcia <so_you_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Your "boy in the bubble" reference makes me think of a hamster in one
> > of those rolling plastic balls. If she had one of those, at least she
> > could exercise.
>
> <snort> ROFLMAO
>
> > What really strikes me, though, is how someone can claim an MCS
> > disability (if there is such a critter; SSD seems to recognize it as
> > legitimate, or at least legitimatized)
>
> Actually, MCS may have not been a disability last year, but it may
> indeed be a disability this year (I am not making the opinion that
> this woman has a disability of any kind). =A0The Americans Disabilities
> Act (ADA) just underwent its first major underhaul, and it was just
> signed into law by President Bush this fall.
>
> Under both versions, the active definition of an individual with a
> disability is:
>
> "Someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially
> limits one or more major life activities."
>
> Under the original ADA, a physical impairment was defined as: "Any
> physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or
> anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems:
> neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory
> (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive,
> genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine." =A0However,
> written into the original ADA, is this clause: "Environmental,
> cultural, or economic disadvantages, such as lack of education or a
> prison record also are not impairments."
>
> NOW ... under the recently ratified ADA (usually referred to as ADARA
> these days, or S.3406, which has now been passed into law, the main
> active definition of disability is the same (second and third prongs
> do not refer to active disability, are obviously excluded and need not
> be gone into at this point):
>
> `(1) DISABILITY- The term `disability' means, with respect to an
> individual--
>
> `(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
> more major life activities of such individual;
>
> MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITIES are now defined as (but not limited to): `(A) IN
> GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include,
> but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks,
> seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting,
> bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating,
> thinking, communicating, and working.
>
> `(B) MAJOR BODILY FUNCTIONS- For purposes of paragraph (1), a major
> life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function,
> including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal
> cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain,
> respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
>
> > when they spend more hours
> > OUTSIDE the "bubble" than INSIDE it, with no resulting physical
> > distress. Doesn't that seem odd?
>
> It does seem odd to me since they are talking about a "bubble"
> situation, but maybe that's not exactly what they're referring to. =A0We
> don't have the references needed to evaluate whether it actually
> alleviates her condition. =A0I have very severe allergies and I use a
> high-powered air filter, but I don't run it 24/7.
>
> > You would think 14 hours of exposure/
> > day would be enough to exacerbate her symptoms if they were really
> > caused by her environment, wouldn't you? It only takes my husband a
> > few minutes outdoors to react to pollen. After 14 hours, he'd be
> > miserable.
>
> Who knows? =A0We just don't have enough information to do more than
> conjucture on this. =A0You are right, from the information given, it
> seems ludicrous. =A0However, from a legal point of view, EVEN if this
> woman met the definition of disability as above, she still does not
> have the right to a physical accommodation that is far greater than
> what she actually requires to raise her to the level of the able-
> bodied.
>
> I can make an analogy. =A0Let's say "Steve," a grade-school teacher, had
> a legitimate psychiatric disability to where he couldn't wake up on
> time to go to work, and he was constantly late to work. =A0According to
> the ADA, he has a right to work, and he cannot be discriminated
> against by being prevented from working. =A0Steve decided that he needed
> to get a fully-trained golden retriever service dog to wake him up
> every morning, so that he would never be late to work again, and he
> began taking his dog to work with him every day. =A0The dog started
> distracting the students. =A0The students' performance decreased.
> Parents started getting upset because their kids had allergies. =A0Does
> "Steve" have a right to accommodation to wake him up every morning?
> Of course. =A0But a full-sized service dog would be far from a
> "reasonable" accommodation. =A0Steve would have had ever right in the
> world to get a pet dog and train the dog to wake him up. =A0But no judge
> in the world would agree that a service dog would be a better
> accommodation than an alarm clock. =A0If the alarm clock doesn't work,
> you put it across the room. =A0If one doesn't work, you get two, and put
> them in different places. =A0There are also vibrating mattresses, and
> lights that go on and off. =A0All of these devices are much less
> invasive to others, and much less likely to put others at risk, than a
> service dog.
>
> She just doesn't have two legs to stand on, legally, from any
> standpoint.
>
> best, Helen
>
> p.s. thanks for the hamster ball visual ... made my day.
|
