IanFromHKG

I been travelling for a while, and when I haven't (and, unfortunately, for some of the time that I have) I have been suffering or recovering from pneumonia ("walking pneumonia", which is good in that it is not so serious, but bad in that I didn't get to skive off work!). I have therefore not had the chance to reply to kb9522's message of 20 May until now.

I was trying to use proper quotations for this, but my tech skills have failed me as I wanted to quote both my 'original' responses and kb9522's responses to those, in order to reply. However, my tech/coding skills aren't that good so I am relying on old-fashioned text to do this! I hope I am not getting anything out of order, and apologise in advance if I do.

I WROTE:
As to current military or emergency personnel I cannot think of a single rational (i.e. non-emotion-driven) reason for this. If they are on duty and their employer is paying the fare and has decided (for whatever reason) to book them into a particular class or to pay only for one seat, then why should those individuals be given (to use your words) "carte blanche to steal from someone else". If they are not on duty or are retired, what rational reason is for them to receive special accommodation that other members of the public with similar disabilities do not receive?
KB9522 RESPONDED
There isn't, which is why I very specifically stated that "I'm willing to make an exception" with it but "that does not mean others should be forced to [make that same exception] as well".

Well, kudos to kb9522 for admitting there is no rational reason for his/her opinion. That takes some guts, and of course FT is all about personal opinion and debate. With respect, however, I believe that admission does only go to reinforce my opinion. Having said that, just like kb9522, I am not going to try to force that opinion on others.

KB9522 ALSO WROTE
I'm talking about military and police/fire/EMS personnel... Not miners (for example) who also chose a dangerous job. A miner does not protect my freedoms or property, does not keep me safe, will not run into a burning building to save me, etc. If you cannot see this distinction, then it is pointless for us to continue this particular thread of discussion (which is admittedly getting off topic now anyway).

Well, I am not sure I agree with any of this. And, respectfully, I think you are again undermining your own argument and reinforcing mine. Miners may well protect my freedoms and property, keep me safe, run into burning buildings to save me etc. They may well VOLUNTEER to do so, whereas EMS personnel may be OBLIGED to do so. The reality is that EMS personnel are more LIKELY to do this than a miner. They are also, I hope, rather less likely to be injured or killed since they will have had appropriate training. However, I really don't see why a miner who VOLUNTEERS to do so, and risks his or her own life, limb and property, should then be treated less favourably than someone who was PAID to take that risk. If YOU cannot see this distinction, then I am respectfully going to point you back to your own admission that your perspective is not rational.

I WROTE:
and that I am an active supporter of the Royal British Legion and buy and wear my poppy every year with pride. My other favoured charity (and my father's overall favourite) is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, whose rescue services are manned ENTIRELY by volunteers, who regularly risk their own lives, often in extreme weather and dangerous conditions, at all hours of the day and night, to rescue others. They commit significant amounts of their spare time to training and practices, and do not receive a single penny for their efforts.
KB9522 RESPONDED
I bet that makes you feel good. I wonder what it's like to do one thing and say another.

I don't really know how to take this. Even taking the most generous interpretation I can think of, it seems to me that it is intended to be deliberately insulting and an accusation of hypocrisy (alternative interpretations, anyone?). I don't think anything I have said on here suggests that I have said one thing and done another, so I am at a loss to work out where kb9522 is coming from. I was merely trying to demonstrate that my opinions are not motivated by prejudice against those many people who, in whatever role, serve us or our countries. I was also trying to demonstrate that my support does not exclude veterans, but also includes volunteers, in an attempt to show that my views that both should be treated equally are in fact matched by my actions.

KB9522 WROTE
I'm going to assume that you used the term "ambulance driver" out of ignorance and did not intend to use it in a derogatory sense. This is actually considered insulting by EMS personnel. Perhaps if you ever have a need for an EMS response in the future, they'll show up and just drive you to the hospital instead of stabilizing you and/or performing life saving interventions.

I didn't use it out of ignorance of the valuable services that ambulance drivers perform. I was, however, ignorant of the fact that in your country it is regarded as an insult - something which I find deeply shocking, and which I fear reflects very poorly on your culture.

Perhaps there is some distinction to be drawn here in that in the UK and HK those life-saving interventions are carried out by paramedics, not by ambulance drivers (some paramedics do both, but that is only because they are on motorcycles, not (technically) driving ambulances)).

On that note:

Global 321 RESPONDED
OP can respond, but I did not read it in a negative way. I think the point was to not make exceptions based on job/military affiliation/etc.

Absolutely correct on both fronts. Notwithstanding, I apologise unreservedly to any EMS personnel or other readers insulted by my innocent use of the term. No disrespect was intended.

kb9522

Welcome back. Hope you're feeling better.

I didn't say there was no rational reason. But I acknowledge that while there may be reasons to allow something, there may also be reasons to not allow it. It just so happens that my willingness to make an exception does not outweigh all of the reasons to have no exceptions at all. It does not make my opinion irrational, on the contrary it shows a great deal of thought. What is irrational, is what seems to be your opinion, and that is to open the floodgates and turn every flight into Noah's Ark. Consequently, I suggest you disband your effort to make it seem like I'm the irrational one.

A miner who happens to be in the right place at the right time and who intervenes (which is not necessarily a good thing, by the way) is vastly different than a trained professional who has early on decided that he or she will take on this role every day. That same professional could have just as well chosen an entirely different career that was far more inconsequential, and received a great deal more money for it. Sorry, but you have an incredibly weak argument here...

In the US, both personnel are trained to at least the BLS standard of care, and usually rotate who provides patient care each call. More common is a double ALS crew or mixed ALS/BLS crew. It balances the amount of paperwork that needs to be done by each provider. So yes, calling a trained medical provider a glorified taxi driver is insulting.

MSPeconomist

I don't want to go into OMNI/PR territory, but when miners are specifically and repeatedly mentioned, an argument can be made that their dangerous jobs help the USA to minimize its dependence on foreign oil, which can be a good thing for our national security.

Also, let's not forget that in parts of the USA (mostly rural) EMTs and fire fighters are all volunteer positions. Volunteers are trained and make a commitment to the roles, but they're not paid and most such volunteers have other jobs or operate their own farms and ranches. I don't know the statistics, but you also see volunteer fire departments (often including the EMT service) in small towns and even outer suburbs of major cities.

kale73

I have no issue with miners bringing emotional support animals with them into the mines (isn't the parakeet the go-to critter in that environment?) or firefighters having their Dalmatians along for the ride on the ladder truck.

I don't really care to be seated next to either on a commercial airliner.

John Galt

I recently had a handicapped hang tag (broken leg from skiing. Last thing I remember was saying "Hey y'all! Watch this!").

My doctor gave me a note with a specific time limit on it and I took it to my local DMV (Same place in the USA you get license plates, renew driver's license, etc) and they gave me a hangtag.

I don't know why they can't do that for ESA service animals. In private businesses, and also in State Parks, it is actually illegal to ask the person any details about why they have an ESA.

Global321

I don't think that is true...

From Hawaii...

Companion and Emotional Support Animals. Most federal and state laws do not define companion and emotional support animals and therefore do not offer you the same civil rights protections of a service animal. An exception exists for housing, where companion/emotional support animals are permissible but not defined.

A place of public accommodation may ask only two questions:
(1) whether the dog is required because of a disability, and
(2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform


(bold underline mine)

In California public places and work places. When the disability or need for reasonable accommodation is not obvious, a job applicant or employee may need to provide the employer with reasonable medical documentation from a health care provider that confirms: the existence of the disability, and the need for reasonable accommodation.

For National Parks, according to the National Park Service, ESAs have specifically defined as pets, not service animals. More specifically... Dogs that are not trained to perform tasks that mitigate the effects of a disability, including dogs that are used purely to provide comfort or emotional support ("therapy animals"), are considered pets. Service animals in training and pets are subject to the park's pet regulations and are not allowed on trails or boardwalks. Falsely portraying a pet as a service animal is considered fraud and is subject to federal prosecution.


(bolding, red, underline mine).

abaheti

I don't think it is illegal to ask in California. ESAs are a loophole crossed with the strange (to me) cultural trend of treating pets like children and thinking they have rights or the need to be with their owners at all times, in all situations. A butcher shop near me has resorted to "ADA service animals ONLY; no pets or emotional support animals". It has been amusing to watch people insist that they need fido with them or that fido needs to be with them (support human?).

One heated discussion ended up with a woman saying she couldn't leave her dog tied to the parking meter because it was so expensive it would get stolen and she would hold the shop liable. And that the store owner was a terrible person who hates animals. Rather than leave her dog at home where it belongs. And never mind that it is against California law to bring animals into food serving locations (other than a patio or outdoor area where there is an entrance not bringing the animal inside).

kale73

Bolding mine.

Seriously? She said this to a butcher?

What did she think she was going to buy in the butcher shop?

abaheti

Trust me, I was chuckling to myself. Funnily, I am a vegetarian, but frequent the butcher shop to pick up items for my wife -- much to the amusement of the owner/staff. The other frequently galled refrain is how fido is so much cleaner than people, what's the problem, I don't care what the health code says, etc.

PTravel

There is no such thing as a "legitimate ESA." Owners of ESAs are supposed have proper certification. The ESA itself is no more and no less than a pet that has had no special training, testing or certification of any kind. And THAT is the problem. The idea that ESAs provide a necessary function is fine. However, just as with service animals that provide necessary functions, ESAs should receive similar training, which includes ensuring that the animal is exceptionally obedient, doesn't create a nuisance or hazard to others, etc. If you've ever seen a REAL service animal on a flight (and it's quite possible you wouldn't have noticed it), you'll note that, irrespective of its size, it will lie
at its owner's feet, without intruding into anyone else's space, and won't whine, bark (unless to alert its owner in the context of the service it provides), and will ignore other animals and people.

There's a simple solution to all of this: ESAs should be welcomed on-board PROVIDED they are trained and certified ESAs (except that such training and certification doesn't yet exist).

Global321

While I agree with your overall post, even now there are people that claim pets are ESA's when they have not bothered to spend the $69 to get the papers. That is all I meant.

It is not just about the ESA... it is about real treatment for a debilitating illness. Without treatment, these people will never get better.

My guess is requiring ongoing in-person treatment plus animal training will eliminate 99% of the ESAs currently on planes.

PTravel

Except that, even if they get the fake papers, it takes THOUSANDS of dollars to train and certify a service animal. If such certification were required, that would certainly eliminate the abuse and confine ESAs to those who have a legitimate need (and, of course, as with service animals, for those without the financial wherewithall, there would be subsidies and charities available).

There's no argument from me. I have no medical background at all, but my personal belief is that anyone who is so emotionally fragile as to be unable to fly without an ESA probably shouldn't be on a plane in the first place. I have no problem with an on-going treatment requirement, except that I'm sure the same websites that offer a 5-minute, 3-question on-line diagnosis would simply offer "on-going treatment" for an additional fee.

kb9522

There is no legitimate need for an ESA. An ESA does not correct or assist with any physical impairment. Being emotionally fragile is not a disability.

Tizzette

In the days before ESAs flying free, back when you had to pay to fly your pet in the cabin, most of these fragile folks did without.

PTravel

As I said, I have no medical background and so have no idea as to the kind of "help" an ESA provides or doesn't provide. I'll defer to medical experts (real ones, not the quacks who sell certifications on line), though I've already expressed my personal opinion: someone whose emotional or psychological well-being is so fragile that they require the presence of their pet to fly probably shouldn't be flying in the first place.

Yep. Funny, that.