Chose where you fight
I received this circular notification this morning from Ontario,
Canada, via Facebook. This is a sample letter to be sent to Members of Parliament, prepared by the Chase the Dream charity, but with local variations it might be sent in many places around the world where CE's advocates try to get local legislators and insurance systems to pay for Conductive Education for children:
And
I am torn about what to think, what to do. The letter carries
enormous hope, and it is so right in thrusting this issue firmly into
the political arena where it belongs.
Politics
The
provision of Conductive Education is a political matter,
concerned with choice and power and money, and only an organised
political campaign will see Conductive Education through in the face
of ubiquitous opposition (it is amazing how few seem to realise this
to the point of concerted action). Provision of Conductive Education
is not a question for policy-making by 'professionals' and
bureaucrats.
The
letter's basic position is compatible with this –
Families
and friends of children with neurological motor disorders, such as
cerebral palsy, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, and victims of
stroke or brain injury, are asking that the Ontario Health Care
system do its homework and recognize that the current system is not
meeting the physical, intellectual, social, and medical needs of
these individuals. Conductive Education programs offer families a
coordinated system of treatment that will help to meet these needs.
Conductive
Ed needs to be recognized by the Ontario Health Care system as a
legitimate method of therapy and treatment for individuals, young and
old, suffering from neurological disorders, and provide financial
support to help families off-set the costs incurred while receiving
such treatment.
Technicalities
I
do not know the structure of services and how they are funded in
Ontario but surely no other special-educational service there is
provided via the healthcare system.
It
is hard enough to fight for Conductive Education for the
motor-disordered. Children with other developmental disabilities in
the twenty-first century will have been long within the province of
the education service, where no doubt their parents continue to
strive for ever better upbringing, pedagogy and education accordingly
(not treatment and therapy).
Let
us not be cynical, nor let us be surprised if fundholders in
education everywhere are more than happy if the advocates of
Conductive Education divert their enormous energies to assaulting the
walls of the fortress next door, that of the the health authorities.
This
can line of attack can be certainly justified by Conductive
Education's being made to sound to outsiders like a health
concern –
Conductive
Ed programs work. By re-training the brain through intensive,
multi-stimulatory therapy, people with neurological motor
disabilities are able to generate muscle memory to enable them to
perform body motions – such as sitting, standing, walking, holding
and manipulating objects, and drawing – all of which were not
possible through conventional therapy currently offered by the
Ontario Health Care system. Coordinating services (e.g. occupational
therapy, physiotherapy, speech and language) allow families more time
and energy to focus on quality family time instead of travelling from
one appointment to the next. Conductive Ed programs offer individuals
greater independence, thereby, function with less reliance on
government agencies in adulthood.
These
are not arguments to threaten Conductive Education's opponents within
health, though they may maintain or even widen Conductive Education's
distance from education.
Torn
I
wrote above that I feel 'torn' over this letter. In the early
twentieth century so much is taken ans unproblematicly 'medical'. It
may be that the assumptions of this age will be strong enough to
convince legislators in Ontario that Conductive Education should be
pushed through and established within the realm of health provision.
A
younger generation of advocates is likely know the spirit of their time
better that I.
Reference