Thackeray wrote me, "I just had a good chat with Jeff Deutscher, the media contact at Dignity Medical Services. Very nice guy. He was not familiar with disability terminology but was highly receptive to the points I made and felt they were very helpful. He and I did some marketing brainstorming and I shared a lot of disability perspective. He understood that both from a disability advocacy and an AARP-style caretaking perspective the term wheelchair-bound is misguided. He has promised to revise that term and also change "the disabled" to people with disabilities. I also learned a bit more about the product, which itself sounds rather promising."
I appreciated his action, especially since I didn't act myself. But, as I told him, the name "Dignity" continues to rubs me the wrong way, to coin a phrase. As far as I am concerned, evacuation of one's bowels or bladder is "dignity-neutral," and to imply that I need a certain type of potty/shower chair to preserve such doesn't suit my idea of myself.
Thackeray responded. "I don't use a wheelchair myself, though I have a disproportionate number of friends who do. The name didn't rub me the wrong way. I agree with you that going to the loo should be dignity-neutral, but I have seen how avoidable transfers can cut into the dignity both of the chair user and caretakers. I totally respect of course that transfers are often needed, and even desirable for circulation, etc., which is a separate discussion topic. But I can see how this chair in some circumstances could help avoid "indignifying" situations."
Perhaps I am overly radical.
0 comments:
Post a Comment