Would you have helped out?

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Re: Would you of helped out?

I was only saying it surprised me so many felt uncomfortable with the idea of toileting and another person. Of course if you fear dropping someone because of weight or frailty it would be sensible not to attempt it.

 

[thestrangequark]

Re: Would you of helped out?

To avoid the student having to suffer the indignity of an accident in the hallway, I would've helped him into the restroom, and into a stall, but after that, there is a question of the dignity of both people involved here.

Which is the more dignified behavior: aiding a person who is physically incapable on his own, despite one's own embarrassment, or drawing an arbitrary line of what degree of aid is renderable before polite society feels violated? Which is the more dignified behavior, assuming that a stranger will be be willing to help or assuming that he'll consider himself too dignified to do so?

In other words, I believe that in this situation wiping the butt of the disabled individual is a hell of a lot more dignified than not. I don't think it'd be the highlight of my day, but I'd help in any way I could.

This isn't like rendering life-saving aid or even first aid. In that case, one gets ones hands dirty if need be, so to speak.

The case in question is polite society, whether the person is disabled or not. This is a social situation with strong social and cultural boundaries being crossed, whether the person is disabled or not. That's what makes it such a quandary.

Besides my dignity (what's left of it after 50 years) I'm sure the disabled person wouldn't feel too good about sitting there having a total stranger wipe his butt if it came to it, either. The indignity and embarrassment is on both sides.

That's why I said I would at least get the person to the toilet, and even on the toilet if too much aid wasn't required. But after that, I'd tell the person I'm going to find someone qualified to deal with it from there on. A nurse. Someone trained to provide disability services. Someone whose presence makes the situation clinical and not social. Someone where there is no embarrassment or loss of dignity for anyone involved. If I end up wiping that person's butt, I'm going to feel worse for him than I will for myself.

And this is the position with which I disagree entirely, and stand by my original post. I have a different opinion of what dignity is and therefore there is no quandary for me. I think dignity is rendering aid despite embarrassment. Dignity for the able-bodied individual in this scenario is realizing that using the toilet is something we all do daily, and ultimately, helping someone who is incapable of doing it on his own is not actually a big deal. Dignity for the disabled person in this scenario is the realization that just because some one needs help to use the toilet, doesn't make him any less of a person. The disabled person who can accept that he needs help on the toilet and still live a happy, fulfilling life is more dignified than the person who thinks he's somehow not worth another's time and effort.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Re: Would you of helped out?

And this is the position with which I disagree entirely, and stand by my original post. I have a different opinion of what dignity is and therefore there is no quandary for me. I think dignity is rendering aid despite embarrassment. Dignity for the able-bodied individual in this scenario is realizing that using the toilet is something we all do daily, and ultimately, helping someone who is incapable of doing it on his own is not actually a big deal. Dignity for the disabled person in this scenario is the realization that just because some one needs help to use the toilet, doesn't make him any less of a person. The disabled person who can accept that he needs help on the toilet and still live a happy, fulfilling life is more dignified than the person who thinks he's somehow not worth another's time and effort.

I completely agree.

I don't get how peeing and pooing, something we all do every day is somehow wrapped up with dignity. Okay if you decide to take a crap in the street because you think this is somehow funny,THAT is undignified.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Re: Would you of helped out?

The potential squick factor notwithstanding, if you are unfamiliar or untrained with how to do transfers, you are wisest to say no. You could do a lot of damage to yourself and the person you're transferring if the transfer goes wrong, and the easiest way for it to go wrong is lack of knowledge.

It is true, there is a potential for injury on either side. I do this work and am trained, but my response would have been to ask him where his parent/help was, if he could hold it, and go get them. They probably weren't far away.
Another risk factor is being accused of some kind of sexual assault. It may sound callous of me to say, but there are certain individuals who make such accusations for attention. Far more commonly across genders, but still.
If all else failed, I'd help him. But if I suspected paid staff negligence I would follow up on that.

 

[ed629]

Re: Would you of helped out?

Which is the more dignified behavior: aiding a person who is physically incapable on his own, despite one's own embarrassment, or drawing an arbitrary line of what degree of aid is renderable before polite society feels violated? Which is the more dignified behavior, assuming that a stranger will be be willing to help or assuming that he'll consider himself too dignified to do so?

In other words, I believe that in this situation wiping the butt of the disabled individual is a hell of a lot more dignified than not. I don't think it'd be the highlight of my day, but I'd help in any way I could.

This isn't like rendering life-saving aid or even first aid. In that case, one gets ones hands dirty if need be, so to speak.

The case in question is polite society, whether the person is disabled or not. This is a social situation with strong social and cultural boundaries being crossed, whether the person is disabled or not. That's what makes it such a quandary.

Besides my dignity (what's left of it after 50 years) I'm sure the disabled person wouldn't feel too good about sitting there having a total stranger wipe his butt if it came to it, either. The indignity and embarrassment is on both sides.

That's why I said I would at least get the person to the toilet, and even on the toilet if too much aid wasn't required. But after that, I'd tell the person I'm going to find someone qualified to deal with it from there on. A nurse. Someone trained to provide disability services. Someone whose presence makes the situation clinical and not social. Someone where there is no embarrassment or loss of dignity for anyone involved. If I end up wiping that person's butt, I'm going to feel worse for him than I will for myself.

And this is the position with which I disagree entirely, and stand by my original post. I have a different opinion of what dignity is and therefore there is no quandary for me. I think dignity is rendering aid despite embarrassment. Dignity for the able-bodied individual in this scenario is realizing that using the toilet is something we all do daily, and ultimately, helping someone who is incapable of doing it on his own is not actually a big deal. Dignity for the disabled person in this scenario is the realization that just because some one needs help to use the toilet, doesn't make him any less of a person. The disabled person who can accept that he needs help on the toilet and still live a happy, fulfilling life is more dignified than the person who thinks he's somehow not worth another's time and effort.

I can see where you're coming from, but let me ask this. This person that asked me to help him to the restroom, and I've seen around the school does not have anyone with him to help him with such tasks. But where or how does it make it acceptable to ask complete strangers for such help? In a way it's a form of self entitlement. I can understand something coming where a caregiver may not have been there for a day, but to continually come to school and expect someone to always help, that's rather selfish and arrogant. If he's at a university then he is mentally capable of understanding that.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Would you of helped out?

Which is the more dignified behavior: aiding a person who is physically incapable on his own, despite one's own embarrassment, or drawing an arbitrary line of what degree of aid is renderable before polite society feels violated? Which is the more dignified behavior, assuming that a stranger will be be willing to help or assuming that he'll consider himself too dignified to do so?

In other words, I believe that in this situation wiping the butt of the disabled individual is a hell of a lot more dignified than not. I don't think it'd be the highlight of my day, but I'd help in any way I could.

This isn't like rendering life-saving aid or even first aid. In that case, one gets ones hands dirty if need be, so to speak.

The case in question is polite society, whether the person is disabled or not. This is a social situation with strong social and cultural boundaries being crossed, whether the person is disabled or not. That's what makes it such a quandary.

Besides my dignity (what's left of it after 50 years) I'm sure the disabled person wouldn't feel too good about sitting there having a total stranger wipe his butt if it came to it, either. The indignity and embarrassment is on both sides.

That's why I said I would at least get the person to the toilet, and even on the toilet if too much aid wasn't required. But after that, I'd tell the person I'm going to find someone qualified to deal with it from there on. A nurse. Someone trained to provide disability services. Someone whose presence makes the situation clinical and not social. Someone where there is no embarrassment or loss of dignity for anyone involved. If I end up wiping that person's butt, I'm going to feel worse for him than I will for myself.

And this is the position with which I disagree entirely, and stand by my original post. I have a different opinion of what dignity is and therefore there is no quandary for me. I think dignity is rendering aid despite embarrassment. Dignity for the able-bodied individual in this scenario is realizing that using the toilet is something we all do daily, and ultimately, helping someone who is incapable of doing it on his own is not actually a big deal. Dignity for the disabled person in this scenario is the realization that just because some one needs help to use the toilet, doesn't make him any less of a person. The disabled person who can accept that he needs help on the toilet and still live a happy, fulfilling life is more dignified than the person who thinks he's somehow not worth another's time and effort.

OK. So, we will celebrate the going to the toilet. An uplifting experience for everyone. Maybe we can sing a song as we do it.

No, needing help on the toilet doesn't make someone less of a person. A trained caregiver is a godsend to someone in that situation. But disabled persons don't have egos? I'd think at the end of the day, knowing you had to have a total stranger wipe your butt would be a bit of a downer to anyone. A nurse or caregiver is one thing. A teacher or professor doing it is another. Again, it's about acceptable social boundaries. Otherwise, we'd all be wiping each other's butts.

And, bear in mind even a caregiver is going to wear protective gloves in that situation. Where would I find protective gloves?

Now, let's bring the lawyers in. As a professor, if I wiped his butt, I'm not sure if my act of kindness would be looked upon too kindly by my superiors. I don't think I'm supposed to touch students in such ways. Or any way, really. No matter the situation or my intention (again, short of first aid). Wiping a student's butt is almost certainly improper contact no matter what.
Or, say I slip with the person and cause him any kind of injury. I've made myself and the school liable for damages. "I was only trying to do the right thing," is not a defense. I am not qualified to render assistance to the point of sitting a person onto the toilet or cleaning them afterwards.

I don't want this guy to soil himself in the hallway, so I'll show him to the toilet, see that he gets into a stall and is OK, but after that, I'm going to find proper assistance to take it from there.

 

[Captain_Nick]

So, would you of helped him out or not.

No way.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Re: Would you of helped out?

No, needing help on the toilet doesn't make someone less of a person. A trained caregiver is a godsend to someone in that situation. But disabled persons don't have egos? I'd think at the end of the day, knowing you had to have a total stranger wipe your butt would be a bit of a downer to anyone. A nurse or caregiver is one thing. A teacher or professor doing it is another. Again, it's about acceptable social boundaries. Otherwise, we'd all be wiping each other's butts.

Ever read Tuesdays With Morrie? The man named in the title had something to say on that subject...

 

[RandyS]

Re: Would you of helped out?

This sort of thing depends on the level of disability. As I'm sure you (or most of you) know by now, I am disabled, and am constantly being helped into the restroom. This is usually another guy holding the door for me as I push my wheelchair in or out. Do I need it? No, but there's no reason to be rude. The guy is only being helpful after all.

Would I help somebody else? Sure, if I could.

 

[thestrangequark]

Re: Would you of helped out?

The following (for the most part) are valid points and I'm staying up past my bedtime to address them, but after this I'm going to sleep!

I can see where you're coming from, but let me ask this. This person that asked me to help him to the restroom, and I've seen around the school does not have anyone with him to help him with such tasks. But where or how does it make it acceptable to ask complete strangers for such help? In a way it's a form of self entitlement. I can understand something coming where a caregiver may not have been there for a day, but to continually come to school and expect someone to always help, that's rather selfish and arrogant. If he's at a university then he is mentally capable of understanding that.

OK. So, we will celebrate the going to the toilet. An uplifting experience for everyone. Maybe we can sing a song as we do it.

No, needing help on the toilet doesn't make someone less of a person. A trained caregiver is a godsend to someone in that situation. But disabled persons don't have egos? I'd think at the end of the day, knowing you had to have a total stranger wipe your butt would be a bit of a downer to anyone. A nurse or caregiver is one thing. A teacher or professor doing it is another. Again, it's about acceptable social boundaries. Otherwise, we'd all be wiping each other's butts.

And, bear in mind even a caregiver is going to wear protective gloves in that situation. Where would I find protective gloves?

Now, let's bring the lawyers in. As a professor, if I wiped his butt, I'm not sure if my act of kindness would be looked upon too kindly by my superiors. I don't think I'm supposed to touch students in such ways. Or any way, really. No matter the situation or my intention (again, short of first aid). Wiping a student's butt is almost certainly improper contact no matter what.
Or, say I slip with the person and cause him any kind of injury. I've made myself and the school liable for damages. "I was only trying to do the right thing," is not a defense. I am not qualified to render assistance to the point of sitting a person onto the toilet or cleaning them afterwards.

I don't want this guy to soil himself in the hallway, so I'll show him to the toilet, see that he gets into a stall and is OK, but after that, I'm going to find proper assistance to take it from there.

Both of you are bringing a lot of what ifs into the scenarios, that would very reasonably affect how someone ought to deal with this situation.
My original post, and the viewpoint by which I stand, is intended to address the greater question of the meaning of dignity. Frankly, I think dignity is as convoluted a term as sexual morality. It's been so corrupted by different societal norms, religious customs, and cultural traditions over centuries that most people just regurgitate some standard definition with out really thinking about what it could be. In my humanistic worldview, dignity is defined as I said. It is the asking of help and offering of help, the overcoming of stupid societal mores and so-called "manners" (which in this case seem counter to the societal peace and pleasantness manners are supposed to foster), and doing what is right.

Now, when one complicates the situation of course the answers may change -- that is because, like anything else to do with real life, these situations don't occur in a vacuum. Every situation is different and one must consider safety and legality issues, certainly. Likewise the question of entitlement -- we don't know the exact circumstances this individual found himself in when he chose to ask for help, and until we do we have no right to judge whether or not his behavior was too assuming. But these aren't the points I'm arguing.

My point comes back to this:

No, needing help on the toilet doesn't make someone less of a person. A trained caregiver is a godsend to someone in that situation. But disabled persons don't have egos? I'd think at the end of the day, knowing you had to have a total stranger wipe your butt would be a bit of a downer to anyone.

Why should it be? I'm not talking about grieving the loss of abilities one once had -- rather the idea that not being entirely self-reliant in this way should be a knock to one's ego. Again, I find the person who can accept help with grace more dignified than the person who thinks it should be an issue.

 

[Sephiroth]

Re: Would you of helped out?

no, I have no training for it, and it opens me up for liabilities

 

[Witterquick]

Re: Would you of helped out?

I would have answered "sure" too quick, which is what I usually do when people ask for my help. Then realised I didn't want to do it. Then realised that even though I didn't want to, I would have felt bad for him enough to say yes anyway.

By the way, why is "have" always replaced with "of" for so many people? Is it a British thing?

 

[Gaith]

Re: Would you of helped out?

I'm surprised so many people are very uncomfortable about possibly witnessing/assisting in someone going to the toilet. It's not like you don't do this yourself every day, ie it's not like being squicked out over watching heart surgery.

Really? I sometimes self-stimulate, if you follow me. Would it surprise you to learn that I'd be uncomfortable assisting another dude in doing the same?

There are excellent evolutionary reasons, btw, for us being weirded out by others' waste. It isn't just a personal/cultural thing, it's at least partly innate.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Re: Would you of helped out?

I'm surprised so many people are very uncomfortable about possibly witnessing/assisting in someone going to the toilet. It's not like you don't do this yourself every day, ie it's not like being squicked out over watching heart surgery.

Really? I sometimes self-stimulate, if you follow me. Would it surprise you to learn that I'd be uncomfortable assisting another dude in doing the same?

Why yes I'd be utterly shocked if you were uncomfortable with that. ALL bodily emissions and the occasions for them being emitted are equal.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Would you of helped out?

I'm with tsq and teacake, and I've assisted many people in just that situation.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: Would you of helped out?

Ethics still rules. Nobody determines your fate but you. So nobody is being taken out back and shot against their will.

Just left to suffer or die?

And this is the position with which I disagree entirely, and stand by my original post. I have a different opinion of what dignity is and therefore there is no quandary for me. I think dignity is rendering aid despite embarrassment. Dignity for the able-bodied individual in this scenario is realizing that using the toilet is something we all do daily, and ultimately, helping someone who is incapable of doing it on his own is not actually a big deal. Dignity for the disabled person in this scenario is the realization that just because some one needs help to use the toilet, doesn't make him any less of a person.

Absolutely right. There is great dignity in helping someone when it's uncomfortable or unprofitable or inconvenient.

 

[Pingfah]

Re: Would you of helped out?

^ Because I've inherited those same values.

The values you mentioned pertained to how your parents would treat others if they found themselves incapacitated and how they would want to be treated. I still don't see why that should translate to refusing help to somebody else who is in need. Your parents values sound altruistic towards their dependents rather than a rationalisation for refusing aid.

 

[Ghost07]

Re: Would you of helped out?

I said yes, I'd help, I'd been helping my mother since I was ten years old. I think I would have told her that I was worried I might drop her, though...that's the only discomfort I would feel.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Would you of helped out?

The following (for the most part) are valid points and I'm staying up past my bedtime to address them, but after this I'm going to sleep!

I can see where you're coming from, but let me ask this. This person that asked me to help him to the restroom, and I've seen around the school does not have anyone with him to help him with such tasks. But where or how does it make it acceptable to ask complete strangers for such help? In a way it's a form of self entitlement. I can understand something coming where a caregiver may not have been there for a day, but to continually come to school and expect someone to always help, that's rather selfish and arrogant. If he's at a university then he is mentally capable of understanding that.

OK. So, we will celebrate the going to the toilet. An uplifting experience for everyone. Maybe we can sing a song as we do it.

No, needing help on the toilet doesn't make someone less of a person. A trained caregiver is a godsend to someone in that situation. But disabled persons don't have egos? I'd think at the end of the day, knowing you had to have a total stranger wipe your butt would be a bit of a downer to anyone. A nurse or caregiver is one thing. A teacher or professor doing it is another. Again, it's about acceptable social boundaries. Otherwise, we'd all be wiping each other's butts.

And, bear in mind even a caregiver is going to wear protective gloves in that situation. Where would I find protective gloves?

Now, let's bring the lawyers in. As a professor, if I wiped his butt, I'm not sure if my act of kindness would be looked upon too kindly by my superiors. I don't think I'm supposed to touch students in such ways. Or any way, really. No matter the situation or my intention (again, short of first aid). Wiping a student's butt is almost certainly improper contact no matter what.
Or, say I slip with the person and cause him any kind of injury. I've made myself and the school liable for damages. "I was only trying to do the right thing," is not a defense. I am not qualified to render assistance to the point of sitting a person onto the toilet or cleaning them afterwards.

I don't want this guy to soil himself in the hallway, so I'll show him to the toilet, see that he gets into a stall and is OK, but after that, I'm going to find proper assistance to take it from there.

Both of you are bringing a lot of what ifs into the scenarios, that would very reasonably affect how someone ought to deal with this situation.
My original post, and the viewpoint by which I stand, is intended to address the greater question of the meaning of dignity. Frankly, I think dignity is as convoluted a term as sexual morality. It's been so corrupted by different societal norms, religious customs, and cultural traditions over centuries that most people just regurgitate some standard definition with out really thinking about what it could be. In my humanistic worldview, dignity is defined as I said. It is the asking of help and offering of help, the overcoming of stupid societal mores and so-called "manners" (which in this case seem counter to the societal peace and pleasantness manners are supposed to foster), and doing what is right.

Now, when one complicates the situation of course the answers may change -- that is because, like anything else to do with real life, these situations don't occur in a vacuum. Every situation is different and one must consider safety and legality issues, certainly. Likewise the question of entitlement -- we don't know the exact circumstances this individual found himself in when he chose to ask for help, and until we do we have no right to judge whether or not his behavior was too assuming. But these aren't the points I'm arguing.

My point comes back to this:

No, needing help on the toilet doesn't make someone less of a person. A trained caregiver is a godsend to someone in that situation. But disabled persons don't have egos? I'd think at the end of the day, knowing you had to have a total stranger wipe your butt would be a bit of a downer to anyone.

Why should it be? I'm not talking about grieving the loss of abilities one once had -- rather the idea that not being entirely self-reliant in this way should be a knock to one's ego. Again, I find the person who can accept help with grace more dignified than the person who thinks it should be an issue.

That's kind of what this thread has become. At what point is too much doing too much? I have already said I have no problem seeing to it the person is safely to the toilet.

After that, a number of variables complicate "doing the right thing," including just what he needs to do in the toilet and how much he can't do himself. It isn't just the "gross-out" factor. Depending on the aid needed, it may be risky for an untrained person to render assistance beyond a certain point. In my case, I could be opening an entire university up to liability issues. That sounds crass, but it's very true.

There's also a public health issue, frankly. No trained person would do this without wearing protective gloves. Again, that sounds crass, but it's true.

What's right or wrong has to be balanced by what is socially proper and safe (for everyone involved). You also seem to be enobling the disabled person a bit too much. Can this person be embarrassed by anything?

No, losing self-reliance should not be a knock on one's ego or dignity. But having to rely on the "kindness of strangers" (so to speak) in a situation like this not going to set well with all disabled people. And probably, the prouder they are, the more embarrassed they'll be. This student must have been desparate to ask such a thing in the first place. I doubt the favor was asked as if it were no big deal.

I mean, we're going to have to agree to disagree, here. I think there is a social boundaries line that can be crossed. I think there are safety issues that must be weighed against "doing right" given the situation. Hell, like everything else, there are even legal issues. I think both people can try to act dignified about it, but at the end of the day, both will wish it hadn't happened.

 

[trampledamage]

Re: Would you of helped out?

By the way, why is "have" always replaced with "of" for so many people? Is it a British thing?

Good Lord, no! Well not just British anyway

It's a mistake that's been made for a long time, because people write what they hear and saying "would've" sounds like "would of" so that's what is written.