Al.Hoffman@p0.f143.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Al Hoffman) (04/20/91)
Index Number: 15062
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
I love my own subject line on this msg, but never mind that.
How bout this?
If a medical evaluation implies that a child has a better than 50%
chance of becoming very low-vision in his life time, then braille
instruction makes sense to me. If he/she keeps sight, fine, great, but
if not, they will need that basic understanding of braille. Doesn't
seem too much of a can of worms when its presenteded that way, does it?
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!143.0!Al.Hoffman
Internet: Al.Hoffman@p0.f143.n109.z1.fidonet.orgWilliam.Wilson@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (William Wilson) (04/20/91)
Index Number: 15065
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
AH> I love my own subject line on this msg, but never mind that.
Hey Big Al, it gets a 9 out of 10 on the Repeter Meter from me!
AH> If a medical evaluation implies that a child has a better
AH> than 50% chance of becoming very low-vision in his life
AH> time, then braille instruction makes sense to me. If he/she
AH> keeps sight, fine, great, but if not, they will need that
AH> basic understanding of braille. Doesn't seem too much of a
AH> can of worms when its presenteded that way, does it?
Except for one thing...we have the medical establishment making the
percentage call here!
Unlike the totally impartial Repeter Meter, doctors can look at the
same subject and come up with totally different ratings!
Willie
... Like a bat out of Bellevue!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89!William.Wilson
Internet: William.Wilson@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.orgGary.Petraccaro@f90.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Gary Petraccaro) (04/20/91)
Index Number: 15073
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
-> In a message to William Wilson <03-31-91 19:00> Al Hoffman wrote:
->
-> AH> How bout this?
-> AH> If a medical evaluation implies that a child has a
-> AH> better than 50% chance of becoming very low-vision in his
-> AH> life time, then braille instruction makes sense to me. If
-> AH> he/she keeps sight, fine, great, but if not, they will need
-> AH> that basic understanding of braille. Doesn't seem too much
-> AH> of a can of worms when its presenteded that way, does it?
Yep, sure does to me. If we live longer and longer, what's more and
more likely happen to our sight? (It's behind door number 3). Let's see.
Now, we've got people who will have to learn braille because they'll needed
it in their eighties. Maybe we should make 'em take refresher courses, eh?
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!90!Gary.Petraccaro
Internet: Gary.Petraccaro@f90.n129.z1.fidonet.orgAl.Hoffman@p0.f143.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Al Hoffman) (04/25/91)
Index Number: 15155
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
If we let the meidcal community in conjunction with the educators and
family, sort of set the standards for the case, then the probability of
error seems to grow in my opinion. For example, the educator might not
know braille very well and not want to teach it, or knows braile and
will teach anyone. The doctor may be an idiot who thinks everything
will be fine since he is such a great practitioner, and says no, he'she
won't need "braille!". Then the parent says, "Well my child will be
fine!.
I would expect some medical method for stats much be the way to
go here. For example , what percentage of people with a syndrome
closest to the patients keep sight for the next n years, and set your
mark accordingly.
Mistakes will be made, but at least then they'd be made for a
reason, not just traddition, or stupidity, or just ignorance.
OK, so they screwed up, and made the mistake for a reason, the
poor slob on the wrong end of the right reason will of course be quite
humbly happny and won't sue their pants off, or will he move to D.C. and
find a neighborhood lawyer???
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!143.0!Al.Hoffman
Internet: Al.Hoffman@p0.f143.n109.z1.fidonet.orgGary.Petraccaro@f90.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Gary Petraccaro) (04/25/91)
Index Number: 15191
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
Darrell,
The problem with the way Al has it is that "in their life" part. If
you said that they had such-and-such a chance of vision loss in 10-15
years, that would make more sense. We have more and more people living
into their late old age. Hearing can go as can sight, this, I'm sure you
know. Problem is, that the way the statement runs, all some doctor has to
say is that 50 plus percent of those in their 80's have vision problems,
so, go braille. That won't do it. They'll forget the braille they don't
need long before they might really make use of it. We do need to emphasize
the short term need of braille and make certain that that's covered. Like
I said, 10-15 years, that might do it.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!90!Gary.Petraccaro
Internet: Gary.Petraccaro@f90.n129.z1.fidonet.org