Do people ever tell you....

[SueM in MN]

This is a reminder to please play nice.
Calling other posters names is not allowed. So, please, if you are angry when you are typing, please do what I do: count to 10, re-read several times and delete anything that you would not like someone to write about you.
There are many gray areas, and people can disagree, but please don't become disagreeable about it. Also, please keep in mind that sometimes what we could say to someone doesn't quite come out the same way when it's put into writing.
It is true that the ADA doesn't cover many of the things people think it does cover.
This is a quote from one of the ADA websites FAQs:

An individual is considered to have a "disability" if s/he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. Persons discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with an individual with a disability also are protected.
The first part of the definition makes clear that the ADA applies to persons who have impairments and that these must substantially limit major life activities such as seeing, hearing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, learning, caring for oneself, and working. An individual with epilepsy, paralysis, HIV infection, AIDS, a substantial hearing or visual impairment, mental retardation, or a specific learning disability is covered, but an individual with a minor, nonchronic condition of short duration, such as a sprain, broken limb, or the flu, generally would not be covered.

The second part of the definition protecting individuals with a record of a disability would cover, for example, a person who has recovered from cancer or mental illness.

The third part of the definition protects individuals who are regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment, even though they may not have such an impairment. For example, this provision would protect a qualified individual with a severe facial disfigurement from being denied employment because an employer feared the "negative reactions" of customers or co-workers....
Q. What is "reasonable accommodation?"

A. Reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment to a job or the work environment that will enable a qualified applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the application process or to perform essential job functions. Reasonable accommodation also includes adjustments to assure that a qualified individual with a disability has rights and privileges in employment equal to those of employees without disabilities.

A lot of the ADA has to do with employment, part has to do with education (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (formerly called P.L. 94-142 or the Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975), some has to do with access to things like buildings, transportation, voting, services provided with federal money.
The ADA does not list all conditions that fall under it, so there are a lot of gray areas that are being decided with court cases.
Here's a link to a good summary of 1999 Supreme Court cases. It is true that the Supreme Court has ruled that conditions which can be substantially controlled with medication do not fall under the ADA. That is the opinion of the Supreme Court, so it's not just a poster's opinion.
A lot depends on whether there are needs for accomidation; most of the court cases I have looked at revolved around whether a person had needs to could be accomidated. One court case I saw involved a ruling that Kindercare day care centers had to provide fingersticks for children with diabetes. They were not covered just because they had diabetes, but because there was a need that could be accomidated which affected their ability to engage in normal life activities of eating, drinking.

 

[3DisneyNUTS]

Scroot I have a question and maybe you can help me a little. Being a long time Catholic and going to Catholic school for 11 years (left to go to public high school for the computer photo courses in 11-12th grade).

I mention my upbringing because I was taught God protects His children. Now when my son was born he was missing 2/3rds of his brain. His prognosis was horrible so after many many months of struggling to understand why us and mainly keeping our mental state together enough not to take a leap off a bridge we made it through some tough times. My son is doing exceptionally well. While we don't know what lies ahead for him as he has beat many odds BUT his path will probably not be that of a "normal" child.

So after being told "how lucky we are" and "how amazing He is" and how we should "Thank God" for what we have and how well DS is doing. I cannot get past this utter resentment that God did not protect my son! My innocent son who started his life with a major hurdle who has major hurdles yet to come. Being told "I don't know how you guys handle it" when a problem arises or just from overall stress.

I guess what I am asking is why? Why does a life lesson have to be at my son's expense? What does my son learn from having to struggle? What if my son never has the cognitive ability to understand the "lesson"? Of course my son is a whole person to us, his parents, but why must he go through life being labled as having something "wrong" with him? What does that teach him?

I really lost faith when this happened to Chris. And as hard as I try to understand the lesson I cannot see the usefulness of human suffering. I cannot be thankful. This should not happen to anyone much less innocent kids.

Also how does this explain my friends 3 year old passing away from leukemia? What lesson did that poor little baby learn from God through her disease?

I know this sound's completely negative and I apologize but everytime I hear "This is God's will" or "we are given what God knows we can handle" I want to vomit. I know I can handle it but why should my son? Why does he get a less than typical childhood? Where was "the Father" protecting him?

I am sorry this is so harsh but I will never understand "God's plans" when people get ill or are born with a serious medical condition. AND to be thankful after the fact is impossible for me right now because where was the prevention/protection? Why my DS? Why any children?

 

[Talking Hands]

GardenDame IDEA is what you are talking about not ADA. ADA does not cover diabetes of either type. Businesses do not have to make accommodation for a person with diabetes. Videogal is absolutely right that a diabetic has no rights under ADA until they get the horrible complications of the disease. And Videogal was pointing out how unfair this is. I am fortunate to work in a school system that is willing to accommodate my needs but not all businesses are willing to do this. I get more rights under ADA for my hearing loss.

 

[midge dionne]

My son was born with spina bifida/hydrocephalus/Arnold- Chiara. He had 53 surgeries and died last year at the age of 18. I am still struggling with what his purpose in life was. I and everyone who knew him learned what faith in action is all about. My regret is that the lesson was learned at his expense.

 

[3DisneyNUTS]

Originally posted by midge dionne
My son was born with spina bifida/hydrocephalus/Arnold- Chiara. He had 53 surgeries and died last year at the age of 18. I am still struggling with what his purpose in life was. I and everyone who knew him learned what faith in action is all about. My regret is that the lesson was learned at his expense.

I am so sorry your son had to go through this (((hugs))) I totally understand "at the child's expense part"
That is why I asked scoot to try and give us his enlightened view. Even so I don't think I will ever understand children suffering.((hugs)))