Paraplegic man who dragged himself through terminal sues Luton Airport

[davidj]

Paraplegic man sues airport after dragging himself through terminal

As per the thread title. He was offered a wheelchair but refused as it would affect his "independence".

While a sad story, I feel like at the airport he should be using the available equipment at hand and swallow any pride?

 

[kpc]

Paraplegic man sues airport after dragging himself through terminal

As per the thread title. He was offered a wheelchair but refused as it would affect his "independence".

While a sad story, I feel like at the airport he should be using the available equipment at hand and swallow any pride?

Not sure what else the staff could do...clearly he has an agenda but I'm not paraplegic so maybe I too miss the point.

 

[Happy Trails]

Seems similar to this event:

Humiliated Fearnley blasts Jetstar policy

Jetstar has apologised to disabled athlete Kurt Fearnley, who launched a scathing attack on the airline after choosing to crawl around Brisbane airport rather than use an unsuitable wheelchair.

 

[Quickstatus]

At the very core of this is the passengers’ fierce sense of independence in their mobility which was hard earned after their spinal cord injury. They would rather crawl and maintain this independence than have to give it up even temporarily to someone else. It’s about quality of life.

All of us non spinal cord/neurologically injured really do take for granted the independence that our brain and spinal cord provides. The quality of life derives from that independence - that we do not have to rely on others for our own personal amenity.

Think about what it really means - all our senses, mobility, intellectual capacity, and the other more basic bodily functions - and how that affects our quality of life if one or more is taken away. How much is each worth?.

I think what these passengers did was reasonable - they only protected their independence. Nothing more. That it created a furore highlights the possibility that we are looking at this from the wrong perspective

 

[Pushka]

He had the same surgery as I did when I was 32. Surgery to repair a herniated disc that went wrong. There but for the Grace of God Go I.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

At the very core of this is the passengers’ fierce sense of independence in their mobility which was hard earned after their spinal cord injury. They would rather crawl and maintain this independence than have to give it up even temporarily to someone else. It’s about quality of life.

All of us non spinal cord/neurologically injured really do take for granted the independence that our brain and spinal cord provides. The quality of life derives from that independence - that we do not have to rely on others for our own personal amenity.

Think about what it really means - all our senses, mobility, intellectual capacity, and the other more basic bodily functions - and how that affects our quality of life if one or more is taken away. How much is each worth?.

I think what these passengers did was reasonable - they only protected their independence. Nothing more. That it created a furore highlights the possibility that we are looking at this from the wrong perspective

That's one view, but I wonder if it is too subjective? An objective view may acknowledge that things go wrong from time to time. People do their best to assist others. And still end up getting sued.

Where does the line get drawn? A wheelchair passenger sues an airport because of a remote gate and they will only accept using the stairs to board rater than a lifting platform?

 

[Quickstatus]

Yes sometimes activism can go too far. Like Tim S who would publicly complain that few don't bother trying to pronounce his name correctly.

Most of the complaints about aircraft stairs and the disabled stem from the inconsistent application of company rules with regard to how much assistance an airline can provide. Often its the case of yes we can help you get on but then at the destination, no we cannot help you get off.

 

[kermatu]

I understand the desire for independence. And can see the value in highlighting an airport or airline's shortcomings in terms of being as well setup as they can.

But you've relied on others to get you from City X to City Y -- the pilots have flown you, the crew has served you etc etc. How bad is it genuinely to accept that somebody may need to push you through the airport? Everyone will be different I know, but I'd prefer that to crawling. And think it would be much more considerate of the staff who - presumably - are doing the best they can.

Could easily have pics taken and highlight the failures after that. Though acknowledge there would be a hit to your pride / esteem.

 

[Franky]

It is a dilemma, whilst we should provide facilities to meet the needs of those that are disabled in any way, it is not possible to provide the gold standard in each and every place. We have just had such a subjective take on things recently here in Perth when just after the new walk bridge was completed across the Swan to connect the city with the new Perth Stadium, they announced that they were preparing the bridge to enable people to climb the structure on the way over, similar to Sydney’s harbour bridge. This then brought complaints from disabled groups as due to the design of the bridge, it was not possible for them to be accommodated. Last I heard, the plan was dropped, perhaps until things quite end down for a while. That said, it should not be the way things are decided. Have a look at the design of the bridge if you wish to comment.

That's one view, but I wonder if it is too subjective? An objective view may acknowledge that things go wrong from time to time. People do their best to assist others. And still end up getting sued.

Where does the line get drawn? A wheelchair passenger sues an airport because of a remote gate and they will only accept using the stairs to board rater than a lifting platform?

 

[samh004]

My view is that they had procedures in place and whether adequate or not from his standing, he chose to go it alone. It is unrealistic to assume that every situation will have the best facilities humanly available, so when a situation presents itself that isn't up to scratch you should certainly highlight it, but spitting the dummy is a whole other ball game.

He refused the assistance, saying he felt it removed his independence.

Levene asked if he could instead be transported in a motorised buggy, but Luton did not have one.

Now he is suing Luton Airport, telling the BBC that without his wheelchair, his independence "was no longer there".

I like this bit, as it suggests because they didn't have the next best thing to a self-propelled wheelchair – in this case a motorised buggy – he is suing and indirectly through his actions they may not get a motorised buggy in the future, as they wont have the money to pay for one. He is contributing to other instances in the future.

 

[trooper]

I would respect this stand on independence a lot more if he wasn't trying to sue the airport. He refused the assistance that was available... OK..fine. But to SUE as well?

 

[kermatu]

Yep, that step seems silly and as samh004 said, potentially harmful. If he loses he also does the cause some harm. Possibly just hoping for some payout to make it go away.

 

[Daver6]

So on the one hand he is saying it's about his independence but then goes on to say:

Levene asked if he could instead be transported in a motorised buggy, but Luton did not have one.

Well seriously which is it? Being pushed in a wheelchair is not independent but being driver in a motorised buggy is? IMHO, all credibility went out the window with that.

 

[harvyk]

I can understand exactly where he is coming from. Without going into details from time to time I have issues with mobility. The desire to do things yourself despite the issues (in my case unbelievable pain) is unbelievably strong. The best way to describe it is you feel that you're letting down society if you need assistance from others to get around.

Whilst I feel that in this case the pax should have just sucked it up and used what was available, I can certainly understand their desire not to. That said I also feel that suing is not the right thing to be doing either.

It's hard to explain why a motorised buggy is different to a wheelchair. So I'm simply going to leave it as a "just trust me, it is".

 

[Franky]

I can understand exactly where he is coming from. Without going into details from time to time I have issues with mobility. The desire to do things yourself despite the issues (in my case unbelievable pain) is unbelievably strong. The best way to describe it is you feel that you're letting down society if you need assistance from others to get around.

Whilst I feel that in this case the pax should have just sucked it up and used what was available, I can certainly understand their desire not to. That said I also feel that suing is not the right thing to be doing either.

It's hard to explain why a motorised buggy is different to a wheelchair. So I'm simply going to leave it as a "just trust me, it is".

With the greatest respect to you harvyk, I can't cop that.

 

[Pushka]

I think sometimes there are ‘self battles’ to be won and this wasn’t one of them. How did dragging himself through the airport prove anything?

 

[milehighclub]

Luton Airport said in a statement it was satisfied with its response. On discovering that Mr Levene's flight had arrived without his wheelchair, our teams worked hard to find a solution, offering Mr Levene an assisted wheelchair as a temporary replacement," the statement said.

Interesting that he is taking action against the airport considering that it is usually the airline responsible for arranging assistance, not the airport authority. In fact, the airport looks like it went out of it's way to help, when really the airlines handling agent should have assisted for misplacing it in the first place.

 

[drron]

I think sometimes there are ‘self battles’ to be won and this wasn’t one of them. How did dragging himself through the airport prove anything?

Well it got a lot of publicity for disabilities.

 

[Pushka]

Well it got a lot of publicity for disabilities.

Yes. But also think that many understand that things go wrong (lost wheelchair) and that they tried to offer him a solution. Not perfect of course.

 

[kermatu]

Not ascribing motives, but it's a much more striking visual to be crawling, and to the casual observer gives the impression the airport / airline offered nothing. But does maintain one's independence.