Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-23-2012, 08:08 AM
 
10,449 posts, read 12,415,976 times
Reputation: 12590

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00 View Post
There isn't always a choice.

One of my closest friends has CP. He's 30 years old and has progressively lost function. Luckily his local pool has both a lift for his wheelchair (if he needs to use it) and allows him to use a pool noodle to keep his head above water while he exercises his lower body. However, if they DIDN'T accommodate him, he would have nowhere else to go. He lives in a city, has no family (was abandoned into the foster care system and, because he has those special needs, was never adopted), and has no way to get from place to place. His whole world is limited to the few blocks around his apartment unless his best friend (my boyfriend) or I can pick him up - we're the only people in his life with cars and I work full time.

You're right, the floaties are reasonable accommodation. I wouldn't even think to *ask* a pool if it was OK for my child to wear floaties - they're so commonplace. When my friend was a kid, that's what he used. You know who told him to use floaties and (now) a boogie board or pool noodle? His DOCTOR and OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST.
That's a good point and you're absolutely right. The pool I went to in NC was the only pool I could have gone to, so if they weren't down with me swimming, I would have been stuck without swimming. I did it for chronic pain management so no swimming would have meant more pain. I do understand what it feels like to be limited to a small area, because when I lived in NC, there was no public transportation. I could only go as far as I could walk, and was willing to cross a street independently. The streets were mega 6-lane roads without sidewalks. So if some business treated me like crap in my area (which often did happen), I had no choice but to keep patronizing it.

I guess the only other solution I could think of would be to get a doctor's note, or a note from a physical therapist, explaining that the floaties are functioning as a way to accommodate his disability. It shouldn't have to come to that, but I would be willing to do that if it meant swimming in the only pool facility around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-23-2012, 08:09 AM
 
10,449 posts, read 12,415,976 times
Reputation: 12590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
Uh NO mom want special treatment and when she didnt get her way she bitched about it on TV.

The pools rules as reported in the news story stated that approved flotation devices for the disabled are acceptable. The floaties are not approved.

Hey mom get your ass out of the pool, go get your child the proper equipment and quit using him to play the victim.

Sheesh people its not that difficult.
When people judge and condemn others this harshly, I always wonder if they know what it's like to have a disability without accommodations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 08:12 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,446,034 times
Reputation: 22471
I wonder why with all the liability and costs that apartment buildings and cities provide pools. If they hire a lifeguard, they're likely only going to hire some kid that doesn't know all the complex legalities and will likely just try to enforce the obvious rules and might think when there are "no floaties", that would mean no floaties for anyone.

This mother is looking for lawsuit money, that's pretty obvious. And if her child lost his grip with the floatie and drowned, she would definitely not take responsibility for the drowning, she would be suing for all she could get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 08:20 AM
 
10,449 posts, read 12,415,976 times
Reputation: 12590
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
I wonder why with all the liability and costs that apartment buildings and cities provide pools. If they hire a lifeguard, they're likely only going to hire some kid that doesn't know all the complex legalities and will likely just try to enforce the obvious rules and might think when there are "no floaties", that would mean no floaties for anyone.

This mother is looking for lawsuit money, that's pretty obvious. And if her child lost his grip with the floatie and drowned, she would definitely not take responsibility for the drowning, she would be suing for all she could get.
What's worse:

1) Never being allowed to go for a swim when you want to, or
2) Someone in the pool using a floatie while you enjoy your swim?

Is it really such an imposition on the others that one patron wants to use a floatie to mitigate his disability? What is the big deal with letting some other person enjoy their life in a similar way you already enjoy yours?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 08:23 AM
 
10,092 posts, read 8,170,831 times
Reputation: 3411
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
ADA makes rules the pool has to follow and the people who have disabled kids don't follow the rules and use the proper floating devices and scream foul. Gimme a break. Go toss your kid in a lake if you don't want to follow the rules.
NO NO NO

The ADA--the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT--states that public facilities have to make REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS for people with disabilities. In addition to a host of other things that I'm not going to get into here, it means letting them do things that other members of the public might not be allowed to do, if it helps them to participate. The ADA has absolutely NOTHING to do with rules that pools or parks set for able bodied visitors. The ADA is a federal law that says, no matter what your rules are for everyone else, you have to bend or change the rules for people with disabilities. That means that even if you don't allow noodles or floaties for other people, you HAVE to allow them for people who need them because of mobility issues, etc.

Sometimes I want to bang my head on a wall when I read this board.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 08:27 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,446,034 times
Reputation: 22471
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
NO NO NO

The ADA--the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT--states that public facilities have to make REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS for people with disabilities. In addition to a host of other things that I'm not going to get into here, it means letting them do things that other members of the public might not be allowed to do, if it helps them to participate. The ADA has absolutely NOTHING to do with rules that pools or parks set for patrons for able bodied visitors. The ADA is a federal law that says, no matter what your rules are for everyone else, you have to bend or change the rules for people with disabilities. That means that even if you don't allow noodles or floaties for other people, you HAVE to allow them for people who need them because of mobility issues, etc.

Sometimes I want to bang my head on a wall when I read this board.
And who is going to pay for years of legal courses for the teenage lifeguard so he or she will know what is a "reasonable accommodation".

When there is a safety rule like "no floaties" but life jackets are allowed, who would guess that floaties in a less physical capable individual is a reasonable accomodation? That goes against common sense because a disabled just like a physically able person can lose their grip with a floatie and drown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 08:27 AM
 
10,449 posts, read 12,415,976 times
Reputation: 12590
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
NO NO NO

The ADA--the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT--states that public facilities have to make REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS for people with disabilities. In addition to a host of other things that I'm not going to get into here, it means letting them do things that other members of the public might not be allowed to do, if it helps them to participate. The ADA has absolutely NOTHING to do with rules that pools or parks set for able bodied visitors. The ADA is a federal law that says, no matter what your rules are for everyone else, you have to bend or change the rules for people with disabilities. That means that even if you don't allow noodles or floaties for other people, you HAVE to allow them for people who need them because of mobility issues, etc.

Sometimes I want to bang my head on a wall when I read this board.
Unfortunately it's not just this board. There are tons of people that are stuck in a pre-ADA mentality in real life. Apparently they feel more threatened by the fact disabled people sometimes need accommodations, even minor ones like using a flotation device, because I can't seem to understand why people would be opposed to others trying to enjoy their life. I could understand a money argument if he (or his mom) was arguing for something that's inordinately expensive, like forcing the pool to install some adaptive equipment that cost them thousands of dollars, but using a floatie is free and imposes nothing on anyone! At the end of the day, it boils down to prejudice, nothing more, nothing less. If other patrons say "Why does he get to use a floatie and not me?" it's not that hard to explain "He has a disability that requires him to use one," just like some disabled people need to use a wheelchair/cane to get around, whereas able-bodied people don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 08:31 AM
 
10,449 posts, read 12,415,976 times
Reputation: 12590
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
And who is going to pay for years of legal courses for the teenage lifeguard so he or she will know what is a "reasonable accommodation".

When there is a safety rule like "no floaties" but life jackets are allowed, who would guess that floaties in a less physical capable individual is a reasonable accomodation? That goes against common sense because a disabled just like a physically able person can lose their grip with a floatie and drown.
It doesn't take years and years of legal courses to understand how ADA works to the extent necessary to make a judgment call in a pool facility. Way to be melodramatic. What's so unreasonable about a floatie? Obviously he was under adult supervision by his mom too, who would be able to see if he lost his grip and could help him to re-esatablish it. What goes against common sense is not allowing someone to swim in a way that's safer for them, even though that way might not manifest in the same way as it would for most people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 08:32 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,446,034 times
Reputation: 22471
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky View Post
Unfortunately it's not just this board. There are tons of people that are stuck in a pre-ADA mentality in real life. Apparently they feel more threatened by the fact disabled people sometimes need accommodations, even minor ones like using a flotation device, because I can't seem to understand why people would be opposed to others trying to enjoy their life. I could understand a money argument if he (or his mom) was arguing for something that's inordinately expensive, like forcing the pool to install some adaptive equipment that cost them thousands of dollars, but using a floatie is free and imposes nothing on anyone! At the end of the day, it boils down to prejudice, nothing more, nothing less.
Having safety rules apply equally for everyone is not prejudice.

Are you claiming that someone with physical handicaps can hang onto a "floatie" better than a person who has no handicap? A floatie is a toy -- it's more prejudice to allow only certain kids to have toys in the pool but forbid other kids from having them.

Either someone can swim or they cannot, an appropriate life jacket would be for safety. The pool did not forbid life jackets.

Otherwise maybe all those who want special treatment for themselves, should be required to bring a letter from a doctor spelling it out, because you cannot expect a typical lifeguard to know if this or that should be allowed, the minute they get it wrong, there will be a lawsuit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 08:34 AM
 
10,092 posts, read 8,170,831 times
Reputation: 3411
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalayjones View Post
The mother was wrong here.

As a mother of a special needs child, I always check the rules of places (like the skating rink; can I walk the rink with him if I wear sneakers) and if they can't accommodate him I find another place. If it's something special like a bday party, I try to talk to with the staff beforehand to see what accommodations can be made; in this case a life jacket would have worked.

This is just another mother who think she deserves special treatment. I feel sorry for the kid because they are the ones who end up hurt by these style of parenting.
I think you need to learn to advocate a little more strongly for your child. What kind of parent of a special need child complains about "special treatment?" The purpose of the ADA--a federal law that takes priority over any stupid "rules"-- is to make sure that your child has the same opportunity to participate as other kids, even if that requires that they bend the rules to accommodate your child's disability. You're right--talking to the staff in advance helps, but if they refuse to accommodate, you can sue. The purpose of suing isn't to make money--it's to make sure that the organization understands that there's a consequence for not following the law. People do really STUPID things in the name of rules that make zero sense, but they don't have the right to set rules that make it difficult or impossible for your child to participate. The circumstances for special needs kids will never improve if parents aren't willing to step up and advocate for their child--that's your JOB as a parent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top