OK, I spent the morning at an incredibly boring meeting that happened to overlook a busy parking lot. Like all parking lots, there were a slew of reserved handicap spots. In my boredom I noticed that most of the handicap parkers were seriously obese. My count for one hour was 32 parkers: 28 fatties!!
Were they fat because they were handicapped or handicapped because they were fat? I'm not going to deny that I can be judgemental about people's weight problems but I try to be careful with my stereotyping. Oh, back to your original question, I would have a problem with not allowing someone who has a legit medical condition for their weight "Handicapped" status. However, to reduce steps to the building for someone who needs to be taking MORE steps does seem to exacerbate (sp?... don't have my dictionary handy, fish) rather than help the problem. I guess, from a practical perspective, "the system" has a hard time distinguishing between the two although I really don't know how that works.
By the way, you sound about as bored as I am sitting here at my mother-in-law's house!
Quercus, I think you hit the nail on the head. During my boredom I thought "hey maybe the handicap in some way led to their weight gain. Or maybe the weight caused mobility issues like hip and knee issues." But then I wondered if obesity is defined as a handicap (I don't know)wouldn't the encouragement of less activity be detrimental to their problem.
BTW, I'm all for lending a hand to those that need it. I was just bored.
Good luck with the inlaws! Mine are in for weekend starting in an hour or two.
If they could prove legitimate thyroid problems (or other verified medical reasons for weight gain) them maybe I could see it being considered a handicap but if they are an otherwise able bodied person then no I wouldn't call it a handicap.
Danny
__________________
Limitations are for people who have them.
I watched a Dr.Phil show on obesity with my mom n sis. One comment he made about this that I love to this day is "If we gave the overweight people handicapped stickers, the parapelgics would be parking 3 blocks away!"
Like hell over weight people should get to park closer because they are lazy.
BTW - The Dr. phil show was actually pretty good..
__________________
This is your life, and it\'s ending one minute at a time.
1. Is anyone with any kind of handicap eligible for handicapped parking?
or
2. Are only those with handcaps that don't result from their own choices eligible, whereas those whose handicaps result from choices they have made are ineligible?
These questions are ethical snakepits, I warn you.
__________________
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument." William Gibbs McAdoo. US Vice-President under Woodrow Wilson.
Related to the issue but thankfully avoiding the snakepits [img]smile.gif[/img] I hope, my wife and I went to an outdoor concert north of Houston last night. She had to sit in one place outside of the pavilion and wait for me so, out of boredom, she just took notice of her assessment of the condition of the people walking by. She viewed about 75% of them to be overweight based on her own subjective standards. I don't think it's any secret that our population has, in general, a problem with controlling body weight and the group on this forum would tend to be less forgiving than most of people who don't make the effort to do something about it... like walking a little bit further! I call these "exercise opportunities."
Originally posted by gardener:
1. Is anyone with any kind of handicap eligible for handicapped parking?
or
2. Are only those with handcaps that don't result from their own choices eligible, whereas those whose handicaps result from choices they have made are ineligible?
These questions are ethical snakepits, I warn you.
Part of the problem would be in the definiton of 'handicapped'. It is a subjective definition, I think. How does one define precisely what 'handicapped' is?
Regarding point#2---how does one establish 'handicap' as it relates to choice? I suppose that obesity is, in many cases, related to poor choices. But what about a 20 year old man who becomes a paraplegic in a car accident which occurs while 'street racing'? Surely, he made the choice to race and knew the risks, right? So, would his handicap not result from a choice he made? It's easy to think of dozens of other examples where handicap could be related in some way to choices made.
I agree, gardener, that this does bring up an ethical quandary.
Originally posted by russ: Part of the problem would be in the definiton of 'handicapped'. It is a subjective definition, I think. How does one define precisely what 'handicapped' is?
Regarding point#2---how does one establish 'handicap' as it relates to choice? I suppose that obesity is, in many cases, related to poor choices. But what about a 20 year old man who becomes a paraplegic in a car accident which occurs while 'street racing'? Surely, he made the choice to race and knew the risks, right? So, would his handicap not result from a choice he made? It's easy to think of dozens of other examples where handicap could be related in some way to choices made.
I agree, gardener, that this does bring up an ethical quandary.
The ethical quandry is not one for you and I to decide. The Americans with Disabilities Act is what determines who qualifies as "handicapped" and who can park in the spaces that are close to the buildings. Of course, it's in the implementation that it gets murky separating the "truly handicapped" and those simply looking for a better parking spot.
"MYTH: The ADA protects people who are overweight.
FACT: Just being overweight is not enough. Modifications in policies only must be made if they are _reasonable_ and do not fundamentally alter the nature of the program or service
provided. The Department has received only a handful of complaints about obesity." http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/pubs/mythfct.txt
I think the above is referring to lawsuits and official complaints and that obesity is a legit ADA qualifying condition. I would guess that the reason that there are few complaints is that the permits are readily granted. Depending on how the act is administered, that could vary from one locale to the next. I think, at our university, the University Police Dept issues the permits so, in the end, it could be the person behind the counter who decides who gets the benefit and who doesn't. (As an aside, I was trying to remember the name of the "classic" book in public administration on that subject... author's name starts with an "L" I think.) I believe the law is flexible enough to allow interpretation that allows obesity to qualify just from the standpoint of impaired mobility. This may be something you could ask of your employer's HR office. You can imagine the quandry of the bureaucrat trying to sort out the people with a medical basis for obesity from the ones who could benefit from a better diet and more exercise. It's not that person's role to make that determination. Perhaps "The Government" has chosen (assuming rationality here ) to tackle the obesity issue through other channels, not the ADA.
On the other hand, I don't know if a medical evaluation is required or not (seems to make sense that it would be) but there you have the same quandry... is an MD really going to deny this and risk being sued over a parking spot?
So, while I think Torque was simply pointing out that permits are likely granted to some people who probably would benefit from walking a little more - and I would agree with him - their lack of mobility, whether self-imposed or not, seems to qualify them under the law as it stands. Still, we just need to be careful with our stereotyping... in ALL areas!
Linear Mode
