Today, I met three of my neighbours. It's not that I haven't seen any of them before, but I actually had conversations with them. I met a guy who lives upstairs. We didn't talk about much, but at least I now have a familiar face. Later, I met the 2 guys who live across from me. They are selling their unit, so I had a look around. I wasn't checking it out to buy, but more because I'm curious as to what that unit looks like. They're moving to Vancouver Island. They seem nice. It's kind of too bad I'm only starting to get to know them and now they're going to move away. Still, it's nice to have some familiar faces to greet here. I hope the people or person who buys their unit will be just as nice, and maybe even someone I can become friends with and maybe even hang out with.
Other than that, I feel extra tired today and I don't know why. Maybe its' because I'm coming off a week where my routine was different than usual. It was a good week, though. Mom and dad were here which changed my routine. It was a good time, though. After they left, I've been busy every night with meetings or youth. I'm hoping that by Tuesday, I will have my full energy back. Tuesday is when I'm back to work at the hospital. I am hoping this tiredness is not due to me getting sick or something. I know I am quite sore and need a massage - my neck and shoulders in particular are sore.
On a totally different topic, I came across a journaling site upon the recommendation of a colleague. Maybe I will try some of those strategies here in my blog. I hear I don't blog often enough! :) The site has examples to get people going with journaling, and, although I don't exactly see my blog as a journal, it is a journal of sorts. Maybe more specifically, some entries are journal-like, others are more article like, and still others are pictures based. Here's the link to the Journal Writing online mini-course. In particular, I want to try some of the 14 writing techniques found at the bottom of the page - just scroll down. Any bloggers out there, I encourage you to try some for yourself and let me know how they are going. I am labelling blog entries that I am purposely using a journal technique as 'Journal Writing Approaches' to find them easier when I want to go back and reflect on the techniques and what came out of using the techniques.
Showing posts with label Discussion topic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Discussion topic. Show all posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Article - Harm reduction is God's grace
Harm reduction is God's grace
Please read the linked article (Harm reduction is God's grace) to understand what this post is about, as I've referred to the article as a basis to this post.
This article is about harm reduction and the connection with Christian faith. I've thought about this concept a lot since I began my training to become an Occupational Therapist, and also once I began practising. I have had co-workers outright threaten me when I've advocated for harm reduction, and I've also experienced shared views from co-workers in advocating to use a harm reduction approach. It is a controversial topic - one that I'm sure will continue to be a topic to be wrestled through. There is a time and place for this approach, and there are times when I would not advocate for this approach. However, I agree with the view shared in the article that there are times when harm reduction is living out God's grace. That where some people are at, this is the best approach to minimize damage and to still walk alongside them and care for them. I don't think I really thought through how this approach fits with my faith until I read this article but there were situations where this just seemed right. I didn't think through exactly how it fit with my faith, but in the back of my mind, I knew it did. When I read the article, I couldn't have put it in better words.
For more information on Harm Reduction, follow the links below:
Harm Reduction Fact Sheets
Principles of Harm Reduction
Also, just to note, not only is harm reduction used for drug and alcohol related situations, but it is also used for potentially harmful lifestyles (e.g. providing condoms to sex trade workers).
Please read the linked article (Harm reduction is God's grace) to understand what this post is about, as I've referred to the article as a basis to this post.
This article is about harm reduction and the connection with Christian faith. I've thought about this concept a lot since I began my training to become an Occupational Therapist, and also once I began practising. I have had co-workers outright threaten me when I've advocated for harm reduction, and I've also experienced shared views from co-workers in advocating to use a harm reduction approach. It is a controversial topic - one that I'm sure will continue to be a topic to be wrestled through. There is a time and place for this approach, and there are times when I would not advocate for this approach. However, I agree with the view shared in the article that there are times when harm reduction is living out God's grace. That where some people are at, this is the best approach to minimize damage and to still walk alongside them and care for them. I don't think I really thought through how this approach fits with my faith until I read this article but there were situations where this just seemed right. I didn't think through exactly how it fit with my faith, but in the back of my mind, I knew it did. When I read the article, I couldn't have put it in better words.
"As Christians we believe that God loves us no matter what and he sticks with us. We're told this through the story of Israel in the Bible of people who mess up and God stays with them. We're a continuation of that story."
"Harm reduction is a Christian way of living among people with addictions. Christians have often not understood harm reduction in that way. They've understood it as sin being encouraged."
For more information on Harm Reduction, follow the links below:
Harm Reduction Fact Sheets
Principles of Harm Reduction
Also, just to note, not only is harm reduction used for drug and alcohol related situations, but it is also used for potentially harmful lifestyles (e.g. providing condoms to sex trade workers).
Friday, February 19, 2010
Review of a Lecture: Suicide
I went to a couple lectures today by Professor John Swinton of Aberdeen University (biography, Centre for Spirituality, Health and Disability) about Suicide as well as the church's response to mental illness, suicide, and survivors of suicide. A few things stood out for me.
Suicide or suicidal ideation is most often the result of a break in trust between the individual and the social environment, therefore it is both communal and relational . Another was the picture of severe depression as an abyss, as described by a participant in one of the studies described. The person is at the bottom of an abyss, sometimes seeing a trace of light and other times, sitting in complete darkness. As the chances of getting out of this abyss looks utterly hopeless, suicide seems to be the most logical and rational choice to end the hopelessness and despair. Even if they do get out of the abyss, as the person walks around the edge of the abyss, the person fears they will get sucked down into that abyss again.
Reasons for depression and suicidal ideation are often founded in losses: loss of tradional roles, social supports, sense of meaning or purpose, employment, etc. It can be the result of confusion over identity or the result of a culture of suicide where someone has 'succeeded' and it has now been modeled and, to some degree, accepted as an option. People with the highest risk are individuals with a history of mental illness, particularly affective disorders, schizophrenia, or alcohol addictions (possibly other addictions?). The phenomenon called 'anomie' can also lead to suicidal thoughts - a state of isolation and anxiety due to a lack of social control and regulation. In this case, there is a sense of alienation and detachment. Often, individuals feel they are in "no man's land". Sometimes, suicide gives the person a perceived sense of control. They can be quite angry if the suicide attempt was not 'successful', as the one thing they felt they could control did not succeed. Unemployment is a significant factor, as employment provides a sense of meaning. We frequently identify ourselves with our profession or job title. A lack of employment may lead to poverty and loss of relationships which leads to lower personal well-being.
Interestingly, research presented in the lectures suggest participating in a faith community on a regular basis appears to correlate to lower suicide rates. It is suggested this is due to the social community as well as the opportunities that arise from participation in regular gatherings where crisis intervention can occur because people can respond to needs. A sense of belonging to a group and being accepted gives a sense of protection. Regardless, mental illness still overrides the benefits of belonging to a group. On a different note, but related to faith, there is a phenomenon described as 'the double bind of religion' where people state God doesn't allow them to commit suicide and they are angry with him for that.
Recommendations to provide appropriate support for individuals includes creating safe spaces that are culturally relevant - places where people can do what they are best able to do. We also need to rename success - we need to re-evaluate how we define success. Should we be measuring something else as a mark of success? We also need to provide strong, positive and healthy male and female role models as the loss of identity has become a significant issue. Young people today do not know what it means to be manly or womanly, which can result in confusion.
Something I'd like to explore more from these lectures is the idea of Caplan groups. This is a bringing together of pastoral as well as non-religious supports (including professionals), to discuss how to best integrate the individuals experiencing suicidal ideation, individuals who are survivors following attempt(s), individuals with mental illness, etc. Interestingly, it was pointed out that it is essential each profession (including pastoral care) maintain its integrity of the profession so as not to lose the benefits that each profession brings. Each profession needs to stay true to themselves. As an Occupational Therapist, this idea struck me as essential because this is a profession that seems to easily meld into other professions or get replaced by someone of a different professional background without the team really understanding the benefits an Occupational Therapist can bring to the table. In the case where mental illness is a strong factor for the individual seeking support, it is easy for the professions to meld towards the psychologist or psychiatrist perspective.
Other notes that came out in discussion include:
Suicide or suicidal ideation is most often the result of a break in trust between the individual and the social environment, therefore it is both communal and relational . Another was the picture of severe depression as an abyss, as described by a participant in one of the studies described. The person is at the bottom of an abyss, sometimes seeing a trace of light and other times, sitting in complete darkness. As the chances of getting out of this abyss looks utterly hopeless, suicide seems to be the most logical and rational choice to end the hopelessness and despair. Even if they do get out of the abyss, as the person walks around the edge of the abyss, the person fears they will get sucked down into that abyss again.
Reasons for depression and suicidal ideation are often founded in losses: loss of tradional roles, social supports, sense of meaning or purpose, employment, etc. It can be the result of confusion over identity or the result of a culture of suicide where someone has 'succeeded' and it has now been modeled and, to some degree, accepted as an option. People with the highest risk are individuals with a history of mental illness, particularly affective disorders, schizophrenia, or alcohol addictions (possibly other addictions?). The phenomenon called 'anomie' can also lead to suicidal thoughts - a state of isolation and anxiety due to a lack of social control and regulation. In this case, there is a sense of alienation and detachment. Often, individuals feel they are in "no man's land". Sometimes, suicide gives the person a perceived sense of control. They can be quite angry if the suicide attempt was not 'successful', as the one thing they felt they could control did not succeed. Unemployment is a significant factor, as employment provides a sense of meaning. We frequently identify ourselves with our profession or job title. A lack of employment may lead to poverty and loss of relationships which leads to lower personal well-being.
Interestingly, research presented in the lectures suggest participating in a faith community on a regular basis appears to correlate to lower suicide rates. It is suggested this is due to the social community as well as the opportunities that arise from participation in regular gatherings where crisis intervention can occur because people can respond to needs. A sense of belonging to a group and being accepted gives a sense of protection. Regardless, mental illness still overrides the benefits of belonging to a group. On a different note, but related to faith, there is a phenomenon described as 'the double bind of religion' where people state God doesn't allow them to commit suicide and they are angry with him for that.
Recommendations to provide appropriate support for individuals includes creating safe spaces that are culturally relevant - places where people can do what they are best able to do. We also need to rename success - we need to re-evaluate how we define success. Should we be measuring something else as a mark of success? We also need to provide strong, positive and healthy male and female role models as the loss of identity has become a significant issue. Young people today do not know what it means to be manly or womanly, which can result in confusion.
Something I'd like to explore more from these lectures is the idea of Caplan groups. This is a bringing together of pastoral as well as non-religious supports (including professionals), to discuss how to best integrate the individuals experiencing suicidal ideation, individuals who are survivors following attempt(s), individuals with mental illness, etc. Interestingly, it was pointed out that it is essential each profession (including pastoral care) maintain its integrity of the profession so as not to lose the benefits that each profession brings. Each profession needs to stay true to themselves. As an Occupational Therapist, this idea struck me as essential because this is a profession that seems to easily meld into other professions or get replaced by someone of a different professional background without the team really understanding the benefits an Occupational Therapist can bring to the table. In the case where mental illness is a strong factor for the individual seeking support, it is easy for the professions to meld towards the psychologist or psychiatrist perspective.
Other notes that came out in discussion include:
- lament is a form of worship. Also, how can faith communities (or other communities) provide space (literally and figuratively) for emotional release. A suggestion was developing a wailing place. A place that allows for sounds of lament.
- it is important to know your scope (skill level) and to know the resources available to refer when necessary. Referring doesn't mean dropping that individual when you make that referral. If necessary, you can accompany the individual to the referral.
- in relation to faith communities, it is important to be flexible - different styles of worship, accommodations required, understanding, etc. Not everyone is in the same place at the same time (spiritually and personally speaking).
- churches should speak to the life, creating a sense of hope.
- How can faith communities (or communities of practice or communities in general) counter stigma associated with mental illness and help seeking?
- How can education directly address suicide and suicide prevention?
- How will congregations or communities be educated?
- How can a faith community discourage suicide and still support without condemnation?
- How can faith communities support and encourage isolated individuals, persons with mental illness, persons at risk of suicide, suicide survivors, and those who have lost loved ones to suicide?
- What would it look like if we actually lived by grace (as opposed to judgment)?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Does all sin fall under the category of stealing?
I was watching the movie 'The Kite Runner' tonight. It's a pretty good movie, but has some rather disturbing scenes. I wouldn't recommend it for children, but the story is interesting. I may read the book and see how it compares. But the question in the title is what I want to discuss. The father in the story tells his son that all sin is theft of some sort. That theft is the worst sin. He suggests murder is stealing - stealing someone's life. Stealing a father, or mother, or brother, or sister, or wife, or husband, etc. from someone. Robbing the individual of a life they would never experience. Lying is stealing one's right to the truth.
What about some of the sins? I guess adultery is stealing someone from someone else. Stealing their heart. Or their body. Or both. Idolatry would be stealing the worship and focus from God. I haven't really thought about how others would fit into this category, but in a way this makes sense. Robbing someone of something of value. Disrespecting. Dishonouring. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting concept worthy of thinking about a bit more.
Tell me what you think.... do you agree with this idea? Any thoughts? Or do you have another idea that relates?
What about some of the sins? I guess adultery is stealing someone from someone else. Stealing their heart. Or their body. Or both. Idolatry would be stealing the worship and focus from God. I haven't really thought about how others would fit into this category, but in a way this makes sense. Robbing someone of something of value. Disrespecting. Dishonouring. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting concept worthy of thinking about a bit more.
Tell me what you think.... do you agree with this idea? Any thoughts? Or do you have another idea that relates?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Why can't church just be church
A rather amusing mockery, yet somewhat realistic (from what I've seen anyway) attempt at portraying church advertising and marketing.... as if church were a Starbucks franchise. Check out this video. Thoughts anyone?
Friday, October 12, 2007
Debate with a Politician
Today, I went back to work in the evening for a political forum where the encumbant alderman was to be. Before it started, she stated she was not going to participate in the forum. She only wanted to speak with people one on one. This, after several staff came out for the event if they lived in the ward and many guests turned up. I guess she thought there wouldn't be very many people attending. CTV even showed up. I could tell, when I arrived, that there was tension in the room. It was shortly thereafter when the encumbant's representative stated she would not do the forum. She didn't even get up to the mike.
One of the executive staff asked if she could speak with the encumbant as she is a resident of Ward 8. The encumbant flat out refused and said she didn't want to speak with this individual. This encumbant wouldn't speak with any staff, for that matter. Some of the guests called her on some of her rude comments she made in the media in the past. Others had legitimate questions. She had no interest in hearing what the people wanted to see in a potential alderman. At one point, she tried to get a debate going about another shelter that frequently has led conflicts in the media with ours. Nobody took the bate, and, in fact, stood up for that shelter. I finally was able to get a question or two in. I started out by introducing my roles - resident of Ward 8, person with a disability, someone who works within the community (of the shelter), and an occupational therapist. She gave me a huge smile when I said I live in Ward 8. Her face fell and with each additional descriptor, her face became harder. I'm thinking she thought I was some poor soul in a wheelchair, possibly homeless seeing the meeting was at a shelter. I outlined the positives of the housing project our shelter is planning to build and how it would benefit people. I then asked for her thoughts on the matter. I also asked about what she has done for people with disabilities and if she has further plans. She only had a brief answer for that. I guess she's done something, but not a lot. The question about the building project .... she really skirted the issue. Guests were even whispering that. I called her on that and said, "You didn't answer my question". She went off on something else. I think that's where the bate for cutting down the other shelter occurred. I cut in and said again, "You didn't answer my question. I asked for your thoughts on the benefits of the building." She talked about how it would concentrate those individuals with issues. I explained the reasons again for the benefits and stated that not everyone living in the building would have serious issues, but that some just can't afford paying $1200, $1400, or $1500 for rent. We debated for a bit, as she felt such a project was inappropriate and that, rather, the individuals should be spread out throughout the city. I asked her where staffing will come from to provide the services and support these individuals would require if there are numerous "small" places (as she indicated) throughout the city. She did not want to answer this question. Instead, she asked why everyone is trying to paint such an ugly picture of her. I wanted to say, "You painted this picture all by yourself". But I didn't. I thanked her and she left.
I felt good when the COO congratulated me on a job well done. Wow, I've never heard him compliment me on my work! I was the only staff who could even get a word in.
What was funny about the whole evening is that she did not want to have an organized forum. Instead, she wanted to speak with individuals individually. What she got was a bunch of people leaving upset (which wasn't so good), and the rest circling around her and whomever she was speaking with at the time. It was a forum, but not organized. So, instead of being able to maintain some control of the questions and discussion, she had no control at all. I just watched CTV's story of this event .... I like the fact that they included the comment by one of the attendees alluding to the idea that her not wanting to do a forum makes people believe she is hiding something. The reason she stated for why she would not do a forum was that she thought she would be able to give more applicable information to people if she spoke with them individually. This is the TV reason. She did not answer anyone's questions from what I heard and many were mumbling that she did not have substance to her answers.
Fact of the matter, however, is that the homeless population alone won't make or break the vote. It's a victory that we got a good showing. It's a victory that there is serious interest in the vote by many of the guests. Other than that, whatever will be will be. If this woman does get in (and I seriously hope she doesn't after I saw how rude she is in person), I think it will spell trouble for the shelters, and ours in particular. This evening was not a positive experience for her ... and there's a chance it could have been had she handled things differently. Ok, not a great chance. But this approach made things much worse. I'm thinking there's really only a few options that explain her behaviour today: she thinks she's got the win no matter how she behaves at a forum such as today's because, afterall, who really cares about homeless people? Or she really doesn't care what people think or she really does not think she'll win so why try to make an effort. I highly doubt the last option is even an option. At least two other candidates came yesterday to speak with our guests and staff who are residents in this Ward. They have made a positive impression. But, as far as our role in mobilizing our guests to become involved in society, all we can do is encourage them to participate and have a voice in their future.
One of the executive staff asked if she could speak with the encumbant as she is a resident of Ward 8. The encumbant flat out refused and said she didn't want to speak with this individual. This encumbant wouldn't speak with any staff, for that matter. Some of the guests called her on some of her rude comments she made in the media in the past. Others had legitimate questions. She had no interest in hearing what the people wanted to see in a potential alderman. At one point, she tried to get a debate going about another shelter that frequently has led conflicts in the media with ours. Nobody took the bate, and, in fact, stood up for that shelter. I finally was able to get a question or two in. I started out by introducing my roles - resident of Ward 8, person with a disability, someone who works within the community (of the shelter), and an occupational therapist. She gave me a huge smile when I said I live in Ward 8. Her face fell and with each additional descriptor, her face became harder. I'm thinking she thought I was some poor soul in a wheelchair, possibly homeless seeing the meeting was at a shelter. I outlined the positives of the housing project our shelter is planning to build and how it would benefit people. I then asked for her thoughts on the matter. I also asked about what she has done for people with disabilities and if she has further plans. She only had a brief answer for that. I guess she's done something, but not a lot. The question about the building project .... she really skirted the issue. Guests were even whispering that. I called her on that and said, "You didn't answer my question". She went off on something else. I think that's where the bate for cutting down the other shelter occurred. I cut in and said again, "You didn't answer my question. I asked for your thoughts on the benefits of the building." She talked about how it would concentrate those individuals with issues. I explained the reasons again for the benefits and stated that not everyone living in the building would have serious issues, but that some just can't afford paying $1200, $1400, or $1500 for rent. We debated for a bit, as she felt such a project was inappropriate and that, rather, the individuals should be spread out throughout the city. I asked her where staffing will come from to provide the services and support these individuals would require if there are numerous "small" places (as she indicated) throughout the city. She did not want to answer this question. Instead, she asked why everyone is trying to paint such an ugly picture of her. I wanted to say, "You painted this picture all by yourself". But I didn't. I thanked her and she left.
I felt good when the COO congratulated me on a job well done. Wow, I've never heard him compliment me on my work! I was the only staff who could even get a word in.
What was funny about the whole evening is that she did not want to have an organized forum. Instead, she wanted to speak with individuals individually. What she got was a bunch of people leaving upset (which wasn't so good), and the rest circling around her and whomever she was speaking with at the time. It was a forum, but not organized. So, instead of being able to maintain some control of the questions and discussion, she had no control at all. I just watched CTV's story of this event .... I like the fact that they included the comment by one of the attendees alluding to the idea that her not wanting to do a forum makes people believe she is hiding something. The reason she stated for why she would not do a forum was that she thought she would be able to give more applicable information to people if she spoke with them individually. This is the TV reason. She did not answer anyone's questions from what I heard and many were mumbling that she did not have substance to her answers.
Fact of the matter, however, is that the homeless population alone won't make or break the vote. It's a victory that we got a good showing. It's a victory that there is serious interest in the vote by many of the guests. Other than that, whatever will be will be. If this woman does get in (and I seriously hope she doesn't after I saw how rude she is in person), I think it will spell trouble for the shelters, and ours in particular. This evening was not a positive experience for her ... and there's a chance it could have been had she handled things differently. Ok, not a great chance. But this approach made things much worse. I'm thinking there's really only a few options that explain her behaviour today: she thinks she's got the win no matter how she behaves at a forum such as today's because, afterall, who really cares about homeless people? Or she really doesn't care what people think or she really does not think she'll win so why try to make an effort. I highly doubt the last option is even an option. At least two other candidates came yesterday to speak with our guests and staff who are residents in this Ward. They have made a positive impression. But, as far as our role in mobilizing our guests to become involved in society, all we can do is encourage them to participate and have a voice in their future.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
What's the difference between "Lying" and "Bullshitting"?
I was editing an essay written by one of my friends. As part of her assignment, she had to carry out an experiment on being a 'crap detector'. In this essay, she had to discuss what the signs were of when someone is lying. She had to also differentiate between 'lying' and 'bullshitting'. 'Bullshitting', by the way, is in the dictionary.
I think that "lying" is blatant deception. "Bullshitting" is often a softer form of deception. Mind you, some people use the term to call people on their lies. Following a discussion with some other friends, it came to light that some people see BS'ing on paper as different than verbal BS.
What are your thoughts? I'd like to hear from you.
I think that "lying" is blatant deception. "Bullshitting" is often a softer form of deception. Mind you, some people use the term to call people on their lies. Following a discussion with some other friends, it came to light that some people see BS'ing on paper as different than verbal BS.
What are your thoughts? I'd like to hear from you.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Red and Yellow and Fast Food Restaurants
Have you ever noticed the phenomenon that so many fast food restaurants have red and/or yellow in their logos? McD's, Pizza Hut, Wendy's, Arby's, Denny's and more. What are your thoughts about this? The article talks about how some butterflies with the orange-red-yellow colouring have that colouring to fend off predators. Could that be an underlying reason for the red and yellow? Or are these colours just catchy? Is there something psychological about them?
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Nobody takes responsibility!
I want to bring to light an issue that I think most people don't think about or don't do anything about. It is something that concerns me as well as many other people in Winnipeg. It becomes a big problem around Christmas time when the malls are packed and the parking lots are even more so. Here's my story ...
I was meeting a friend for a movie one evening in December. I was there early, but couldn't find parking. Since I need a wheelchair, I can't just squeeze into a spot that is not technically a spot... something fit for a motorbike. We were going to meet at Chapters. It turns out, the Handicap spots were all full ... with cars that did not have a parking pass. Not only that, but one of the cars was double parked. Needless to say, I was quite annoyed! I called Chapters and they said they'd try to do something about it. In the meantime, I decided to squeeze into the 'non-parking spot' next to the double-parked car. I literally couldn't open up my driver's door so there was no way I could get my wheelchair out. But since my friend hadn't arrived yet, I thought this guy might leave and I'd have fun watching him try to get out of this spot that he would have to inch out of. I would also point to him that the spot was an accessible spot. Anyway, security shows up at the same time as my friend. Security says it's not their jurisdiction anymore. They can't do anything if people park in accessible spots. But ... the city also doesn't take responsibility. So, what do people do who need to park close to the doors?! Security suggested that I get my friend to take my wheelchair out (although this whole procedure was very awkward because of the limited space and my friend's sheer size of greater than 6'2!). I was able to move my car over a few inches but my door still did not open all the way. If I remember correctly, I had to crawl out of my passenger door. When I returned to my car after the movie, another car had replaced the other car. Interestingly, there are three spots there marked on the pavement and only one sign in between the first 2 spots. No wonder people park in the third spot! The other two ... well, I guess there are some people who don't consider the needs of others.
I was meeting a friend for a movie one evening in December. I was there early, but couldn't find parking. Since I need a wheelchair, I can't just squeeze into a spot that is not technically a spot... something fit for a motorbike. We were going to meet at Chapters. It turns out, the Handicap spots were all full ... with cars that did not have a parking pass. Not only that, but one of the cars was double parked. Needless to say, I was quite annoyed! I called Chapters and they said they'd try to do something about it. In the meantime, I decided to squeeze into the 'non-parking spot' next to the double-parked car. I literally couldn't open up my driver's door so there was no way I could get my wheelchair out. But since my friend hadn't arrived yet, I thought this guy might leave and I'd have fun watching him try to get out of this spot that he would have to inch out of. I would also point to him that the spot was an accessible spot. Anyway, security shows up at the same time as my friend. Security says it's not their jurisdiction anymore. They can't do anything if people park in accessible spots. But ... the city also doesn't take responsibility. So, what do people do who need to park close to the doors?! Security suggested that I get my friend to take my wheelchair out (although this whole procedure was very awkward because of the limited space and my friend's sheer size of greater than 6'2!). I was able to move my car over a few inches but my door still did not open all the way. If I remember correctly, I had to crawl out of my passenger door. When I returned to my car after the movie, another car had replaced the other car. Interestingly, there are three spots there marked on the pavement and only one sign in between the first 2 spots. No wonder people park in the third spot! The other two ... well, I guess there are some people who don't consider the needs of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
