walking a little is not the same as walking

fogwithwheels:

roccondilrinon:

fogwithwheels:

what I mean by this is that being able to walk a little, being able to walk with consequences, that’s not the same as being able to walk (the end)

When people are denied wheelchairs because they can walk, an important thing is missed.

They can’t walk

yes, they can physically walk.  That’s not what I mean.

What I mean is,

Can they walk to the store and back?  Can they do so safely?  Can they do so and still have energy left for the day?  For the week?

Can they walk at home?  yes?  Ok, but does doing so leave them with enough energy to leave?  To go to school, work, out with friends, on errands?  Is it safe?

Can they walk long enough to go places, enjoy things, to do what they could do if they had mobility aids?  

Yes, being able to walk, even a little, is different than not being able to walk at all.  

But it’s not the same as being able to walk, without consequences, without fear of safety, for “long distances”

So when you deny someone mobility aids because they can still walk, because you want them to still walk, you’re missing something.

If they’re asking for mobility aids, their mobility is already limited.  They’re already not walking as often because they can’t.  Mobility aids won’t change that.  But they can actually improve mobility, and allow for more opportunities to go out and be active.  

To put it in terms more people might understand. I need glasses. Oh, sure, I can get around the house and read without them. I don’t tend to put them on until I leave for the day. I even need to take them off to read for any stretch of time. But that sure as heck doesn’t mean I don’t need them. I couldn’t drive, or even find my way around town on foot, without them. Same goes for mobility aids. Just because you aren’t totally immobile doesn’t mean you don’t need them.

OH MY GOODNESS

I was just going to write a post with that comparison as a follow up

so uh, reblogging this great commentary instead