Your Letters - March 2010

Assist families, not suicide

My disabled daughter, 22, gave me a questioning look as the news of the Gilderdale verdict was announced on TV.

My daughter is non-verbal, has cerebral palsy and pretty much needs 24-hour support. “Don’t worry” I assured her: “we are never going down that route.”

It’s tough being disabled or ill and needing someone to support you to live your life. It’s also tough being a parent-carer for someone who needs that support. Years of devotion and care can lead to frustrations.

But when you help someone end their life, you’re entering a different arena altogether. If someone isn’t disabled or ill, there seems to be protection in law, but this isn’t the case when you’re someone like Lynn Gilderdale who, we’re told, was in constant pain with ME (chronic fatigue syndrome).

Better support might have dissuaded Lynn’s parents from taking the desperate steps they took: a carer’s assessment, direct payments for care assistants, breaks for the parent-carer, better medical care for Lynn and better access to meaningful activities and friendships. This kind of help could have lifted them out of their misery.

The problem with saying that the family acted out of love, not desperation, is that it sends the message that loving someone is compatible with helping them end their life.

Such arguments should be looked at more carefully. If more such cases follow, as I suspect they will in a society increasingly frustrated by the inconvenience of caring, it won’t be long before my own daughter’s happy place in the community is questioned.

Preethi Manuel, by email

Baywatch confusion and arrogance

Supermarkets and others who offer free parking on private land shouldn’t fine those who display their Blue Badge and park in spaces designated for parents with children (“Not all child’s play”, Disability Now, February 2010).

The fact that Sainsbury’s donates a proportion of its income from such so-called fines to a disability charity doesn’t make its behaviour any less repugnant.

Interestingly, the fines levied by Sainsbury’s parking management company have no statutory authority. Such fines are a civil matter and should not be confused with statutory Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authority parking enforcement contractors.

Technically, the fines – or more correctly invoices for parking services – issued by parking management companies in the circumstances described above can be ignored (as can subsequent requests for payment) if it can be argued that the Blue Badge holder hasn’t entered into a contract for parking.

But don’t ignore the opportunity to write and complain to the chief executive of the store in question and ask him or her to change the company’s policy on Blue Badge holders parking in parent-and-child-designated spaces.

Bob Bonnington, St Albans, Herts

I normally agree with Helen Smith’s remarks, particularly in connection with the Baywatch campaign, but I can’t let her comments in the article “Not all child’s play” go without a protest.

First, I’d challenge her assertion that for parents with children, a wide bay near the door of a store is just a convenience. A wide bay is often needed to get children into and out of their buggies, and proximity to the supermarket door is a safety feature, as the child doesn’t then have to negotiate a dangerous car park.

But the bit that riles is the claim that holders of Blue Badges should be able to use parent-and-child spaces if disabled spaces are full, without able-bodied parents with children also being able to use disabled spaces when other bays are full.

To me, this reveals an arrogance, suggesting that disabled people regard themselves as above any restriction that doesn’t suit them. If all disabled spaces are full, then that’s tough – you’ll just have to wait for one to become free, just as Helen would expect a parent and child to do if their spaces are full.

John Jewitt, by email

Politically written off

I was interested to read your editorial (“Election issue”, Disabiliity Now, February 2010). I’m a self-employed dance workshop leader and travel extensively in the course of my business. This often means being away from home. In the last election this coincided with a polling day, so I decided to apply for a postal vote.

Unfortunately, because of my disability, I can’t produce a consistent signature by hand so I use a rubber signature stamp, which is recognised by my bank for cheques, by HMRC on tax returns and by other official bodies. But when I applied for a postal vote, they said they couldn’t accept the rubber stamp. I’ve therefore been effectively disenfranchised. Has anyone else come across this problem and found a way around it?

Alan Martin, by email

The message in the February edition of Disability Now was that we should all get involved in politics in the run-up to the next election and make an impact on disability policies.

There are only two such policies I care about: firstly, not to create any more impaired people via our ridiculous adventure in Afghanistan; and secondly, the abolishing of charging for social care for disabled people. In fact, the money saved from the first would easily pay for the second.

The political reality is that neither is on anyone’s agenda or likely to be, so why should I give legitimacy to a political system that offers me no real choice on the issues I care about?

Mike Oliver, by email

Open letter to Major Phil Packer

Thank you for your service to this country and your efforts to raise money for the Help for Heroes fund (the need for which is a woeful indictment of this Government). The attitude and fortitude you’ve shown in the circumstances you’ve found yourself in after your injuries in Afghanistan have been an inspiration to me.

Your experience with Taliban snipers will serve you well as you’re drawn into the arena of disability politics. The article in the January 2010 edition of Disability Now (“Getting into a whole new fight”) has already alluded to the garbage you’ll face in the future. By setting yourself aspirational goals and challenges such as climbing mountains and competing in marathons to raise funds for our injured heroes, some will attack you for perpetuating the “myth” of “conquering” tragedy.

Some writers whose ideas run wild in Disability Now seem to think that having your legs blown off isn’t a personal tragedy and should be embraced: why feel the need to “conquer” it?

This is amply illustrated by the moronic question “What is the best thing about being disabled?” in the regular feature “One to Watch”. I can’t imagine what they’d deem the right response to the circumstances you found yourself in. It’s 11 years since I was injured and I’m still at a loss to under­stand the rationale behind some of the magazine’s thinking.

I imagine that their bitching at you and charities not solely employing disabled people gives them something to do, rather than getting on with forming an effective, powerful coalition aimed at reaching tangible goals. I apologise in advance for the rubbish that will no doubt come your way.

I sponsored you in the marathon and I’ll dig deep into my pockets again in the future. All the best in your endeavours.

Sean Kelly, by email

*Disability Now would like to apologise for any confusion caused over the attribution of letters in the print version of the magazine.