THE OPEN DOOR Newsletter

                 THE OPEN DOOR

                December, 2000

               Vol. 12, Number 4

             A publication of the 

   Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities

          754 North President Street

          Jackson, Mississippi 39202

          601/969-0601 (Voice or TDD)

            1-800-748-9420 (V/TDD)

              601/969-1662 (FAX)

                 MSCCD@aol.com

               www.ccd-life.org

_____________________________________________

Robert Wendland --- life, liberty and  ?

By: Carol Cleigh

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created

equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable

rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of

happiness? 

U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776

     Very soon, the California Supreme Court will hear the

case of Robert Wendland.  Whatever its decision, it will have

far-reaching and long-term effects upon the lives of people with

disabilities ---- especially those who have cognitive disabilities. 

Are people with disabilities among the "all men" who are created

equal or not?  Is it a self-evident truth that disabled people have

an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or

not?

     Robert Wendland acquired physical and cognitive

disabilities as a result of an auto accident.  He is definitely not in

a coma, nor is he in a "persistent vegetative state."  He is aware

and awake and clearly interacts with his environment.  He made

significant progress in rehab.  Due to swallowing difficulty, he

uses a g-tube for "nutrition and hydration" (food and water).  His

wife has been named his conservator and she wants the g-tube

removed to starve/dehydrate him to death.  Mr. Wendland's

mother and sister object to his wife's plan.  There is no "living

will" or other document that presents" clear and convincing"

evidence of what Robert would have wanted in these

circumstances.  His wife is using an off hand comment he made

while he was drunk a week before his accident to justify her

plan, even if he now objects (he can't speak). 

     Mrs. Wendland didn't have to work very hard to justify

her plan to the hospital's 'ethics' committee.  They readily

agreed to have him transferred to a nursing home where he

would have been killed.  He'd be dead today if a nurse hadn't

risked being fired to share her concern with Robert's sister.  In

today's medical economics, it is not surprising that hospitals

make it easy for family members to get rid of someone whose

care could run into the millions of dollars.

     We recently received word that Robert was visited by his

mother (over the objections of his wife, she was allowed in by

another nurse who was risking being fired).  He responded to

her and showed that hallmark of humanity preferences!  He

loves bowling!

     A couple of years ago a good friend of mine had been

oxygen deprived for some indefinite time due to breathing

problems.  Doctors at a renowned medical center in Chicago

tried to tell her family to 'let her go' because they believed she

would have cognitive disabilities.  We, her friends and her

husband, immediately said ,"so what?"  We love her with or

without cognitive disabilities.  As it turned out, their predictions

were wrong but now she uses a ventilator and related

equipment plus personal assistance.  She has a life   a home

with her husband and her friends.  But she has had to fight her

HMO and now Medicaid all the way to get what she needs to

live.

     So, what's going on here?  Prejudice toward all people

with disabilities is well documented, pervasive and serious.  But

prejudice toward those with cognitive disabilities is the most

serious.  People with cognitive disabilities are widely considered

less than fully human.  Even people who can almost accept the

humanity and civil rights of those of us who get around

differently or who use voice computers or ASL as a primary

language cannot seem to accept the same for those whom they

perceive as not able to think 'properly.'

     There are many people who don't really believe that the

immortal words of the Declaration of Independence apply to us,

especially those of us who don't think the way they do.  When

the 'fathers' of this Country framed those words, they were

thinking of propertied, white, severely-abled, males.  Women

and racial minorities have expanded 'all men' dramatically.  It

remains to be seen if we will further expand or witness a savage

contraction of its meaning.

     What is at stake in the Wendland case is nothing less

than our most basic civil right.  Will people with disabilities have

inalienable rights or not?  Roberts life has, of course, ultimate

significance for him.  Its significance for all of us is that once

again the able-ist works is trying to expand the circle of those

whom they legally consider less than fully human and can kill

without a second thought.  How 'inalienable' are rights that

apply to some but not to others?  If Robert Wendland doesn't

have inalienable rights, do any of us? 

_____________________________________________