Who has the right of way?

Post Reply New Topic

I have a question. I had an experience today which has happened to me several times before and I never know how to resolve it.

I had my weekly therapy appointment, its more like a physical type of therapy, I don't want to get too specific to protect people's privacy publicly. I have been going to this therapy for nearly three years now and it does have a risk/safety factor because of the type of activity that it is. This is a place that caters only to disabled people.

Less than a year ago, another person started sharing the space with me, meaning we have our sessions at the same time in a shared space but with different therapists. I will call this person A. A is "lower functioning," and I do not know if A uses verbal speech or not. Before today, we never had an issue with sharing the same space. But today, as I was arriving, A was screaming. It wasn't a painful scream, just an expressive scream. I was happy that A felt the ability to express but that type of scream in an echoing hall was enough to make me almost pass out. I lost the first forty minutes of my session, sessions are 45 minutes long, trying to recover from the impact that the screaming had on my brain and ability to function.

As A was screaming, one of the volunteers came over to A and said, "It's so wonderful to hear your voice." basically encouraging A to scream more. I very discreetly told my therapist, I am in danger now because of this. I explained that my brain cannot process this and that I am in danger of having a neurological collapse and that I had to leave and go to my car and if the screaming continued, I would have to forfeit my session that I had already paid for without the ability to get a refund.

My therapist told me that there is nothing they can do about A screaming but if I had to leave then I would have to leave. Eventually, A and her therapist went to a different area and forty minutes later, I was able to recover enough to have the last bit of my session. But basically the consensus seems to so far be that if I have a problem and if A's screaming puts me in danger, I have to either forfeit my time or change my day and time that I have had for almost three years.

I have had this sort of thing happen many times before and it was particularly bad at Special Olympics. At Special Olympics, I would get severely reprimanded and even punished for being neurologically affected by another athlete's extreme vocalizations, excessive and overwhelming efforts to get me to socially interact, or excessive movements because my brain could not handle or process them. They treated me like, how dare I have a disability that makes me struggle when other people are overwhelming.

I understand that they can't control themselves, but I can't control my brain's responses either. I am always told that I have to be the one to change or reschedule my time or quit the program even if I have been there years longer rather than the "lower functioning" person ever having to do anything like maybe have their time rescheduled.

My question is, should each person's disability be treated with equal respect or is it reasonable to expect the "higher functioning" person to have to quit the program or forfeit her session or change her entire schedule even though she has been there much longer or deal with being in danger just because the person doing the overwhelming thing isn't expected to be able to control it?

Is it reasonable for someone like me to be expected to magically control my neurological responses just so that the caretakers of the person doing the overwhelming activity don't feel like I am being rude to them and their ward?

I am really genuinely and seriously asking because I am ALWAYS made to feel like it's ALWAYS my responsibility to just deal with it without a neurological response, or leave, or quit the program.

Right of Way is often used in the context of travelling on the road.

Yes, in a sense if you have an appointment and someone else is causing an issue then it should be the issue causer that moves their appointment. [e.g. if, for instance, the person was abusive or rude to another person attending the building they would soon be shown the door].

However, and this applies to life in general - I always take the right of way to mean that the person who has "right of way" has the choice to take that right OR cede that right.

Often times it is safer to cede the right to the other party for ones safety and wellbeing. If one can recognise that fact then that is no bad thing and is a credit to the person who is aware of that.

If more people did cede their right when it was appropriate to do so the world would be a much nicer place.

If you changed your appointment who knows there may be someone else there that may become friendly with you.

Would a client be allowed to physically hit you if that was deemed successful in their treatment?

Why would they protect the person's right to harm your brain but not your body?

I think they should have to accommodate everyone's needs in socially appropriate ways without risking anyone's health.

Its not a question of right of way. Regardless of anyone else's level of function, you have the right to a safe treatment session. While you can't control another person's screaming/vocalizations, you can reschedule your treatment time or, if necessary, your therapist. I would push for accommodation on your own behalf and push really hard for a refund as well. While therapist's can't control outburst's from other client's they can and should be providing you with alternatives.

Neither.

The place should have at least two different places, specifically for the two incompatible individuals who cannot always be at the same room.

And without implying segregation... Or some form of special treatment/discrimination...

But then, people do not think this far ahead.
At all.

This is a way lesser known of avenue/dimension of accommodation because it involves two different cases -- and worse if it involves uneven parties (the trigger and the triggered)...

It's mostly this...
'The visibly troubled' yet in need of leniency against those with the subtle issues complaints passed off as moral character.
Or vice versa - 'behaviorally disruptive' against the eloquently persuasive complainer.

In which there's no real perpetrator except limited space, possibly constraint of time... Or simply with nothing to go around with it.

Only that I'm grateful that I do not have such 'incompatibilities' because I cannot afford so -- and they cannot afford so.

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.

It really is a difficult situation because I have been and continue to be conditioned to believe that I am the one who always has to cede. This therapy is necessary for my survival but, as always, if it were to come between me and A, I would always be expected to have to quit the program if I can't reschedule simply because I am higher functioning even though I have been there for years and A just arrived. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated situation. I have experienced similar situations for many years when I have tried to get services and help for my disabilities.

Interestingly enough, I ran into the mom of the unruly 12 year old a couple years later an an Autism expo. She actually had a booth and was selling idiotic overpriced knick knacky crafts with her daughter's name on them to make money to support her daughter's needs. She recognized me and started up a conversation with me and tried to get me to buy one of her items. I didn't even give her the dignity of a response. I just stared at her for a second as if I did not recognize her and then walked away. As much as she freely allowed her child to hit me any time she wanted at the Special Olympics practices, and I couldn't discipline the child when she was there, there was no way in all tarnation that I was going to spend any of the little tiny bits of my disability check that I can't even survive on to buy some ridiculous thing with this kid's name on it to support her. Somehow this woman expected me to do that and to be thrilled to see her. I hope that my cold Paddington stare helped her understand otherwise.

You are absolutely right that you should be able to receive the therapy that you need, and that if someone else's actions are interfering with that or making it impossible, you have every right to be accommodated in whatever way is necessary for you to receive the services that you need. It's not a question of whether a low-functioning individual is able to control their behavior, it's up to the professionals running the program to make the services available to all clients.

Having said that, you are dealing with a practical matter. You need a way for the services to be provided in such a way that they are useful and usable to you. That you are in the right is not necessarily going to be helpful if the people in charge don't understand and are unyielding.

Can you find a way to explain to your therapist or whoever else has the power to make decisions that you require certain conditions or it becomes impossible for you to participate in your therapy?

The person that takes precedence isn't just decided by you and the other person, other factors are considered as well. For instance you said that person A is "lower functioning" than you, that could mean that there are people taking care of them as well. From what I understand you are your own guardian(correct me if I'm wrong) so, you changing your time would affect only you and the therapist. For person A, changing their schedule would affect them and their therapist but, also affect their guardian as well.

They also have to take into consideration who would have the easier time adjusting to said change(well make an educated guess). Do I think it's a good idea to disregard someone's needs over another, no. In an ideal world everyone would be catered to but, that's just not reality(at least not at this time). I completely understand where you are coming from though. I have had many instances where I was either suppose to "know better" or "be the bigger person". Sadly sometimes, the world just slaps you with a big dose of "I'm unfair!".

But, to answer your question the person who takes precedence(usually) is the person that the professionals think will be harmed the most by whatever is occurring at that time or they think is at biggest risk of being harmed.