Tone of Voice Page 1998

I want to take exception to the article entitled "School Days" which appeared in the September / October edition of the Tone of Voice. I believe that the author got "cheated out of his education" in part because he expected teachers to treat him as "normal" without any reason. Whether he thought of himself as "normal" is not the point. The fact is the teachers and his peers saw a disabled student and felt all the prejudiced attitudes associated with that period of time.

The problem I have is that the author did not try to change the attitudes of his teachers. Instead he became adversarial and disillusioned with most of his teachers. This is no way to encourage people to try to overcome their notions of people with cerebral palsy as being "dumb or inferior." While I empathized with the author's frustration over not being treated the same as other students, his decision to endure the rest of the school system did nothing to change his teachers attitudes.

I went through a similar school system, and at the first of the year, teachers would treat me as if I had no business in their classroom. However, by working hard and completing my work when the teachers did not expect me to, I soon changed their attitudes of me. By mid year, the teachers could no longer ignore my intelligence and I gained their respect. Even the most resistant of teachers came around once they saw the quality of my work. Once the teachers accepted me, so did the rest of the class. Sure there were students who did not accept me, but I never let them bother me and they never "bullied" me.

Perhaps I was luckier than most people with severe CP, however I believe that to expect to be treated as a normal person just because the school system policy now says that a person with a disability is to be integrated into a regular class, is foolish. Whether or not the person thinks of himself/herself as "normal" the perception of the teacher is going to be based on one of prejudice - especially in that period of time. It is up to the person to prove that he belongs in the classroom, and not just endure through the classes.

I sympathize with the author's frustration at not being able to get an education. However, I can't help feeling that had he chosen another, more constructive path, things might have worked out better for him.

Sincerely,

Derek Isobe, M A

Public outrage at the breadth of the form caused the Ministry to pull it from use and conduct a "review". In April 1998, the Ministry completed its "review" and issued a new Consent Form. While friendlier in format, the form is just as broad and sweeping in its powers.

As with previous Consent Forms, the new form is part of the BC Benefits application. So, by law, applicants for assistance must complete the form as part of the application. The Ministry's practice is to impose this requirement not only on new applicants, but also on people who are re-applying, whether, that be at an annual review or a re-application triggered by an administrative closing of the file. The Ministry's position is that refusal to sign the form at the time of application results in ineligibility.

If you receive income assistance, you will probably be asked at your next annual review to sign the consent form. If you do not sign, there is a high likelihood that MHR will cut off your benefits. You can appeal, but your appeal may not be successful.

There is a court challenge of the Consent Form in the works now. The case launched by Elwyn Patterson represented by Harry Rankin will be heard in BC Supreme Court July 13 and 14, 1998.

By regulations 165/98, MHR can require recipients to come in for an appointment and/or complete the form whenever the Ministry wants to audit eligibility or ensure continuing compliance with the Act.

Failure to attend the appointment or complete the form results in ineligibility.

For more information, contact BCCPD's Advocacy Access Program at 872-1278 or 1-800-663- 1278 (toll free).

"The mother's very pleased with the decision," said lawyer Erin Berger, who is part of a legal team. that includes her father, former judge Thomas Berger, representing Margaret Renaerts and her adopted daughter Ximena, now 12.

The mother and daughter are suing VGH, three doctors and four nurses for negligence after the child was born prematurely and allegedly left in a room used to store foetuses for 40 minutes before a decision was made to resuscitate the baby.

The plaintiffs also allege the baby, who was about 26 weeks old and less than a kilogram at birth, wasn't provided with warmth and was left to die.

When the decision was made to call a transport team to take the baby to Children's Hospital, a doctor allegedly phoned but forgot to say what hospital he was at, which further delayed medical treatment.

The doctors, nurses and the hospital have strongly denied the plaintiff s claims. They have asserted they acted appropriately and suggest the condition of the girl was partly due to congenital or pre-admission injuries.

Lawyers representing doctors had applied to have the case tried without a jury arguing the evidence will be too complex for a jury. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mark McEwan decided to dismiss the application by the defendants.

I have concluded that notwithstanding the number of defendants and the extent of the material amassed in the preparation of this case, it is not so complex that a jury will not be capable of following the evidence appropriately or retaining it and deliberating effectively at the end of the trial," the judge ruled.

Also named as a defendant are the birth parents.

The natural mother, Nadine Bourne, had an abortion at a Bellingham, Washington clinic. Three days later on December 16, 1985 she was admitted to VGH suffering complications from an incomplete abortion. She was scheduled for a "dilation and curettage" the next morning to remove what remained in her womb, but at 3 a.m. gave birth to a baby in a bedpan.

Despite the baby crying and gasping for air, the nurse took the baby and left her in a room used to store dead foetuses. The hospital's supervising nurse came on the scene 40 minutes later and ordered a Code Blue-an emergency resuscitation of the baby.

The girl is profoundly physically disabled and mentally handicapped. She has cerebral palsy, is confined to a wheelchair and has the mental age of a three-year-old. The plaintiffs claim her condition is due to the immediate post-natal treatment she received at the hands of the nurses and doctors at Vancouver General Hospital.

One expert for the plaintiffs has estimated damages should be $10 million to provide a lifetime of care for the child, who lives with adoptive parents and siblings in the Fraser Valley.

A four week trial is scheduled to begin June 1 at the Vancouver Law Courts.

Reprinted from the Wednesday, April 29 1998 issue of the Vancouver Sun

Margaret Renaerts, who adopted Ximena six years ago, called the victory bittersweet. "Its wonderful we reached a settlement, but Ximena is still living with a disabled body," she said.

"No one can buy or pay for good health."

Renaerts launched a lawsuit against the hospital, four doctor's and several nurses after Ximena was born prematurely and left for 40 minutes before being resuscitated.

A four-week jury trial was set to begin Monday, but Renaerts' team of lawyers-led by former judge Thomas Berger merged from the courtroom and announced the case was closed, pending the public trustee's review of the settlement.

An expert for the plaintiffs had earlier estimated damages up to $10 million should be awarded in the case. Berger wouldn't say if the settlement was close to this figure.

"Ximena will be well taken care of for the rest of her life," he said. "I've never felt as pleased to be able to be helpful to a family as I have in this case."

Ximena, now 12, is severely physically disabled and mentally handicapped. She has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair. She can talk and crawl but has a mental age of 3.

Renaerts' lawsuit also named Ximena's natural mother Nadine Bourne, but Berger said no further legal proceedings are expected against the other defendants....Charles Lugosi, Berger's co-counsel, called the case unprecedented in B.C.

Berger argued earlier, that the hospital was negligent for failing to keep Ximena warm, clear her airway and provide oxygen, which caused the baby to suffer brain damage.

In a judgement last week, B.C. Supreme Court Justice F.W. Coles found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that three of the four doctors originally named in the lawsuit were negligent.

Dr Kamal Jaroudi was the only doctor still named in the lawsuit. Berger alleged that Jaroudi who examined Bourne, failed to determine the age of the fetus, failed to do foetal monitoring and care properly for the infant.

Darren Kopetsky, VGH's coordinator of risk management, said Jaroudi is no longer with the hospital, but is head of obstetrics at a hospital in Saudi Arabia. Kopetsky said no policy changes have been made as a result of this case.

"It's not so much a matter of procedure as a matter of professionals," he said. "When there's a situation requiring clinical judgement, we rely on the judgement of professionals." He wouldn't say whether disciplinary action had been taken against any of the professionals involved in Ximena's care.

He said the hospital was relieved to settle the matter. "I think the process of mediation is more constructive than going through a lengthy litigation process." He said the mediation process began before the defendants applied for an adjournment last week.

The first one was a fire which started outside in the back of our building at approximately 5:00 a.m. on Sunday, June 14th. As a result of the fire, six units were completely destroyed and a number of others suffered smoke and water damage. Luckily there were no injuries or casualties among the tenants of our building.

At 2:00 p.m. tenants were allowed back into the building to retrieve personal belongings and to assess the damage to their units. People stayed in their units if they were habitable. The others had to find alternative accommodation. The tenants pulled together and helped each other by offering moral support, food, clothes and accommodation to those less fortunate.

On Monday morning we notified our insurance company about the fire. By 11:00 a.m. a restoration crew arrived. They set up dryers to dry up the excess water and secured the building by nailing boards over holes and broken windows in outside walls. They organized a 72 hour security and fire watch.

The rest of the week the restoration crew dried up excess water, washed walls, tore out burnt gyproc, carpets, appliances etc., and carried away destroyed personal belongings.

At 4:00 p.m. Friday June 19 city building inspectors declared that all units west of the fire wall had to be vacated by 6:00 p.m. This meant that tenants in another 9 units had to find alternative accommodation immediately, causing a great deal of turmoil. Previous to this edict the restoration crew was prepared to work on these units while the tenants lived in them.

The second week the restoration crew continued their demolition, and cleaning up of salvageable appliances. They also tore a strip off the roof to see the extent of the fire damage. Having done an assessment of the damage to the building, they then applied for a building permit from the city.

Rebuilding the gutted and damaged units, replacing the roof, and repairing the exterior is expected to be completed some time between September to early November.

A double murder which occurred shortly after 7:15 p.m. on Wednesday, July 8th was the second serious event. Apparently a former tenant and his acquaintance were having a very heated argument when the acquaintance shot him. A security guard, who was hired by our insurance company to watch for fires in and around our building, attempted to call 911. He was also shot. The murder suspect, who was known to police, has been apprehended. The double murder really shook up every one. Our deepest sympathy goes out to the families of the deceased.

Things are settling down now as everyone is going about their routine activities. We sincerely hope that there will be no more such events. We have had more than our share this summer.

I wondered why the government couldn't see the financial flow that was clear to me. I knew that the disabled ministry would cost less than the present administrative costs for disabled programs. I saw the benefits of reduced administrative cost flowing to the disabled in the form of increased benefits. This would create an economic ripple that would benefit all British Columbian's.

The financial flow in my dream had a secondary stream that was the budget for the ministry. I saw that the budget of the ministry could be held at the initial level for at least three years. This would enable the government to claim a budget saving each year. When you consider a budget of 100 million that would mean a saving yearly of 5 to 10 million and over a three year a saving of 30 million.

Beside the financial flow in my dream walk the thousands of government workers who presently handle the disabled programs. These people could be reassigned to relieve the chronic shortage of staff in the ministry. This would occur with no increase in cost. My vision did not foresee the benefits these workers might make to the social services of this province.

As the Provincial government marches pass the stands filled with the provincial voters, a cheer raises from the assembled crowd. There is no doubt in my mind that the public, would applaud this as innovative thinking that saved money and created a chance for the disabled. The government banners blowing in the breeze would surely proclaim this in large bright letters. It would be a festive occasion for the whole province.

But reality is not a dream and the government has no way to evaluate dreams that people send them. The only thing they listen to is the howling of the mob as they pound on the doors of the legislature.

Well if you want a howling mob at the legislature, you have to organize people. Any one who is familiar with the disabled community knows that it is one of the most difficult communities to organize.

The community sees itself divided by hundreds of diseases that the medical model has created. Each individual has struggled with his disability and with doctors to get to where he or she is. Since he has struggled usually, alone, all his life, he has trouble seeing that a group can do anything for him.

The struggle of a disabled person is unrelenting. You don't get a day off. The struggle is with you each day, every week, at the beginning and the end of the month. You know that it will be with you next year and the year after. The struggle eventually becomes part of your view of the world. The result is that most disabled are so conservative that they make the radial right look like flaming socialists. It would be like trying to organize rocks with out touching them.

I imagined I could get around the individual by getting the already organized groups to support my dream. I saw an avalanche of letters from all groups descending on the government. There would be no way that the government could ignore the on rushing letters.

But again reality awoke me from the dream. I would have to go and talk to each group. Each group would want to change my dream. I would have to compromise this aspect of the dream to get their support. I would have to be come a politician. I would have to find publicity for the dream. I would have to become a public figure.

Because she was angry and totally frustrated with the shoddy treatment she received, she contacted a number of organizations including the Better Business Bureau, the BC Coalition of People with Disabilities, Pacific Transit, and the Burnaby Transit Authority. The Better Business Bureau got her complaint in writing and then relayed it to Bonnie's.

Bonnie's then wrote back to the Better Business Bureau which then relayed the letter to Marg. According to Marg the letter fully supported the driver's actions. However, the company did refund the $8 fare for the second taxi. Even though she got her money back, she was very angry because Bonnie's did not acknowledge and apologize for the poor treatment she received. In fact, she was so angry she tore up the letter. When she contacted the BC Coalition they told her that they required her to put her complaint in writing and would then relay her complaint to Bonnie's. Having gone that route already with the Better Business Bureau she didn't pursue it further. When she contacted Pacific Transit they gave her the phone number of the Burnaby Transit Authority whom she contacted. They told her to write to the Burnaby Licences Department. She has not received a reply.

Her feelings can best be summed up in this excerpt from her written complaint to the Better Business Bureau. "if it is not his [the taxi driver's] job to help people like me... [then] why is he driving such a cab? If Bonnie's Taxi wants disabled people to use their taxis, the drivers should be prepared to give a little assistance."