Organ Donor Dolls

Subject: Organ Donor Dolls Tue 16 Jun 2009, 12:16 pm

(^-^) That sounds right up my street. I'll take a look at that, later on.

For now though, introducing the beautiful 'Organ Donor Dolls' collection -

Organ Donor Dolls Group-shot_1389178i

These dolls are all heart - and lungs, eyeballs and brains. David Foox, an artist based in Denver, Colorado, has created a collection of organ donor dolls

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/5200778/Organ-donor-dolls-by-David-Foox.html

Posts : 71 Join date : 2009-05-11

Not enough people are organ donors. Less than 100 people have donated an organ in Japan in the last.... some number of years. They've even made it illegal there for children to do so. Not sure why. Well less then 50% of people in the US are organ donors.

Firebird if you can read through this long link about disability discrimination:
http://www.ju90.co.uk/nuj.htm

you might find it very interesting. Lots of what you went through recently, are still going through.

I thought particularly interesting was the negative health effects she describes which are so typical when someone tries to fight for their rights. I still recall when I lost my job at the national lab, the other guy who was similarly treated at that time was dead of cancer in less then a year.

Disabled people are particularly vulnerable to the physical and mental effects of taking a case

In general the whole Tribunal process was enormously confusing, even to someone who has a PhD in Communication. For example, I had no idea about the different types of questioning that are permissible for different witnesses. Having been told by the Tribunal that I couldn’t ‘lead’ my own witnesses, I assumed that this was also the case with the defence’s witnesses, making cross-examination totally ineffective. When the NUJ’s barrister discussed legal points with the Panel, I was then completely unable to follow what was being said.

I also had great difficulty in hearing what was being said, particularly as the language was often incomprehensible, and overall found having to attend the Tribunal extremely fatiguing, particularly as the hearing lasted seven days. The need to spend three days being cross-examined left me half a stone lighter in weight and suffering rectal bleeding from the effects of the stress on my stomach. Had I become too unwell to continue, though, the case would automatically have been lost.

Similarly, in autumn 2004 following the remedies hearing I suffered from stomach pains, fatigue, and inflammation of the scar tissue from the carpal tunnel syndrome surgery that I had undergone during the previous summer. Only when I later developed an abscess in my jaw was it realised that I had picked up a bacterial infection during the Tribunal proceedings, and as a result I was on antibiotics from the day after I received the judgment. Three weeks on there was little improvement and the dose had to be doubled, substantially affecting my ability to appeal as I had been strongly advised to do. By January 2005 I still faced another three months' treatment.

Disabled people are clearly particularly vulnerable to the physical and mental effects of taking a case, and the DRC research found that many applicants reported substantial ill-effects as a result of the legal process. Defendants in disability discrimination cases are clearly aware of this, and it is easy for barristers in particular to manipulate the legal process to increase the physical and mental effects on victims while still behaving entirely properly in the eyes of the law. It is quite impossible to give evidence effectively while feeling so unwell that you can hardly remember your own name.

....

In a system ruled by paperwork and last-minute demands, disabled people are at a significant disadvantage

Producing the paperwork was particularly difficult, and the DRC research found this to be a common experience among disabled people taking discrimination cases. Even with volunteers photocopying and collating paperwork, it was still hard to produce it in the first place, particularly as I had developed carpal tunnel syndrome following my return to full-time work in autumn 2001 and was awaiting surgery.

I also had no personal assistance available to me outside the duties proscribed by social services and the employment department, which must be a common problem for disabled applicants. And of course I had no idea what was relevant in the legal sense - the final judgment noted that some of my documentation was entirely irrelevant, but there is no guidance available to explain what is and is not needed.

And even though I eventually had representation during the remedies hearing, I was still unable to produce the paperwork effectively, with the result that I was unable to prove the bulk of my financial losses. The hearing, originally set for April 2004, was postponed until the end of August, but the surgery on my wrist was carried out as scheduled at the end of May 2004, leaving me largely incapacitated for the following months.

The effects of the surgery also meant that I found the hearing even more physically taxing than previously. This meant in turn that I was unable to respond to demands from the NUJ's barrister for further documentation to be produced, because I had to go to bed whenever I was not at the Tribunal. (It was also impossible to respond to cross-examination on financial and other documentation effectively when feeling sick, dizzy and tired as well as being in pain.)

Although the union had had more than a year to ask for this paperwork, and despite the fact that they had been given the opportunity to ask for it at two directions hearings, it was not thought unfair - or discriminatory - to expect me to produce it at the last minute. In a system ruled by paperwork and last-minute demands, disabled people are at a significant disadvantage.

Society should take responsibility for enforcing the law, not the individual

No one could argue that this is a fair system. Yet the experiences of those using the County Court system to challenge discrimination by goods and service providers under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act are believed to be even more negative. Despite the many problems with the Tribunal system, there are still calls to move all discrimination cases into their jurisdiction because Tribunals are perceived as being easier to access.

--

Being forced to continue to relive discrimination in a hostile environment for years after the event is another key factor in preventing disabled people from continuing with their claims

After a further two directions hearings, and the postponement of the remedies hearing twice for administrative reasons, the case eventually came back to Tribunal in September 2004 - more than four years after the discrimination had taken place. At this point the trade union representative on the Panel had retired, and been replaced by a Panel member who had had no involvement in the case previously. Since the DRC research found that Panel members' understanding of disability varied widely, this change must at some level have had an impact on the final judgment.

Being forced to continue to relive discrimination in a hostile environment for years after the event is another key factor in preventing disabled people from continuing with their claims. The emotional impact of giving evidence and undergoing aggressive and hostile cross-examination cannot be underestimated. The abuse of the discrimination is repeated in the legal process, and unlike criminal offences, there are no arrangements for victim support.

When applicants decide to settle instead of reliving of the discrimination further, any compensation paid is then accompanied by a demand that victims sign a contract agreeing to keep quiet about the discrimination they experienced. The DRC research found this to be a cause of dissatisfaction even when disabled people were otherwise happy with the terms of their settlement. This was particularly common when reasons for bringing the case included raising awareness of disability rights and thus helping to prevent the same thing from happening to someone else.

This is all too similar to sex abusers' demands for their victims' silence, which everyone agrees is further evidence of abuse. No one benefits when discrimination is hidden; agreements should be legally restricted to keeping the amount and terms of settlement confidential.

Posts : 71 Join date : 2009-05-11

http://www.jahsonic.com/VisionaryArchitecture.html

Some decent blogs:
(Almost famous fantasy fiction writer)
http://notesfromthegeekshow.blogspot.com/

http://redgenesbluegenes.com/

http://roadofentities2.blogspot.com/

Posts : 71 Join date : 2009-05-11

http://www.edge.org/
"To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves."

Subject: Re: Organ Donor Dolls Fri 17 Jul 2009, 11:43 am

(^?^) Something happened to the forum, and it had to be restored by the maintenance company (I think...) , so now this topic is all wonky.

I think this one used to be about general things, to keep note of them so we don't lose them.
I don't know why posts from the start of the topic would have gone , though.

Sad

I really wish that the internet were more reliable.....

Posts : 71 Join date : 2009-05-11

Oh well. No biggie.