|
|
 |
|
GETTING CLEAN FROM OLD ATTITUDESBy Leslie Underwood “If I was like her I would drink too”.I must have heard that phrase at least a dozen times before being voluntarily admitted to reputedly one of the best drug and alcohol treatment centers in the United States. Once admitted to the infirmary one of the nurses told me, in all sincerity, that it would probably be O.K. for me to drink in moderation. “After all, a blind person has to have some light in her life.” But she did go on to say that the “hard drugs were not a good idea because I could really hurt myself not being able to see how to administer them.” Yes, this is actually true. These statements were made by drug and alcohol treatment professionals who should have known better. The previous beliefs, along with many others were a common occurrence during my four months of intensive treatment in a drug and alcohol treatment center whose reputation for quality is said to be unsurpassed. In July of 1994 I found myself in desperate need of a strict and structured program that would assist me with recovering from a long history of alcohol and drug abuse. There was a long history of drug and alcohol use as well as clinical depression on my mother’s side of the family. She had become a terminal drug and alcohol user and practiced a multitude of other types of personal abuses as well. She died of the disease in a fire in 1987 while I was in the hospital being treated for major depression. I too was already well into addictive behavior in the form of drinking and self-abuse. The cocaine came later. I am the oldest of five children born between the years of 1947 and 1955. Four out of five of us were born prematurely. I was given too much oxygen in order to keep my small, immature body alive. After a trip to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore MD, my parents were informed that due to the excess oxygen given to me, while in an incubator, the retinas were severely damaged. This would render me blind for life. Ironically, my sister was also affected by this practice. At the time the eye disease was known as retrolental fibroplasia; it is now called retinopathy of prematurity, a much more inclusive term. I had some usable vision until the retinas detached when I gave birth to my daughter in 1971. Now both of my eyes are artificial, having been removed due to secondary conditions such as detached retinas, cataracts and glaucoma. My sister still has some residual vision. In the sixteen years since it’s passage, the Americans with Disabilities Act has not come close to equal access. Society has learned from the past that we can not enforce attitudes through legislative efforts. We learned this through the colossal failure of prohibition almost a century ago. These kinds of changes must come from the inside out, not from the outside in. It is absolutely true that the public is more accepting of people with disabilities. Prolonged exposure to all types of disabilities has lessened fears and some stereotypical thinking. We have “come out of the closet”. We still have a way to go. Many cases have been brought before the Supreme Court relating to discrimination against people with disabilities. Most of the cases that have caught the public’s attention have not been positive outcomes for people possessing significant disabilities. The publicized suits have involved people with temporary or less than major disabilities that would actually fit the federal definition of disability… “A condition that prevents an individual from accomplishing one or more major daily life activities.” The current conservative Supreme Court has not render judgment on many major decisions that would increase the rights of people with significant disabilities. The biggest fears still remain regardless of an individual or group’s exposure, education or tolerance level. Some of these residual fears are: It’s O.K. to be friends but he or she might become too dependent on me; It will cost too much money to provide accommodation; Including a person with a disability in a program or facility will cause insurance rates to increase; the disabled person will make other patrons feel uncomfortable and we might lose business as a result; disabled people cause us more work than they are worth; I might catch it; I don’t want my child to associate with them; my child has a problem but is not as disabled as he or she; or they should not marry because there children will be disabled and then become a further burden on society. Ironically, the incidence of substance abuse among people with disabilities is much higher than instances among the nondisabled population. Is this because so few people with significant disabilities have access to treatment? Is it because addictions are forgiven or at least seen as not so crucial to treat? Is it because in general about 70% of people with disabilities are unemployed? Are the addictions overlooked because an individual’s disability masks its intensity and prevailence within the disability community? Could it be that for many people with disabilities relationships are often difficult to cultivate and maintain? Or perhaps all of these factors contribute to its ubiquity. In Part II of this article, we will look at some of the statistical breakdowns that reveal preliminary conclusions about why the disability community paradoxically has a higher rate of addictive behavior while being under-targeted as a population needing increased attention to identify and treat the various manifestations of addictive disease. Leslie Underwood, MSW,Peer Advocate, Independent Living Center Of The Hudson Valley PLEASE NOTE: PORTIONS OF THIS WEB SITE ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION! |
 |
|
|
Copyright © 2006 by ILCHV |
