I want to just think about this for a second:
Someone does something illegal - like skiing out of bounds, hiking in closed-off areas, quadding while drunk, dirt biking with no helmet - and sustains a completely life-changing injury. A disabling injury.
Someone else is born with a body that does not work properly. Their blood is missing vital proteins, their immune system is fighting off their own organs, and they are left disabled and sustain completely life-changing illnesses.
Person #1 hosts immediate fundraisers and public funding campaigns to help pay for their personal medical costs. People line up to help this person access the best private medical care that money can buy. Fundraisers are erected in this person's honour - money going directly to the person for the first few years. This person becomes an inspiration and is still capable of working, of enjoying playing sports (completely differently of course), of working out, training, and goes traveling all around the world (with money fundraised) to spread awareness about accessibility.
Person #2 works as much as possible, tries to enjoy playing sports, working out, training, but whose health prevents them from continuing such a life. They spread awareness as much as they can, they give money to as many charities as possible and participate in fundraisers several times a year. They, however, are limited and cannot afford the best private medical care. Health prevents them from working, enjoying sports, or maintaining any kind of grueling schedule that would be required to help spread awareness across the globe. The desire is there, but the illnesses are preventative.
Why is the first person praised and encouraged to travel and given money for therapy, while the second person is judged and sometimes deemed unworthy of traveling or enjoying themselves?
I recently conducted a survey regarding the opinions of people calling in sick for different increments - for one day, one week, or having to be off of work for an injury or illness from one month all the way until permanent disability. The results seem to show that most healthy individuals believe that if a person is too ill to work, then it is frowned upon for that person to ever take a vacation, go shopping, or even do something as small as going to a movie. That, if someone is on permanent disability for the foreseeable future (20, 30, 40 years), that a fundraiser or a vacation or a shopping trip is a major ethical problem.
Now, if you knew that that person was confined to a wheelchair, do you think that opinion would be the same? What about a person diagnosed with Cancer?
What I think is a misconception about permanent disability is that if they can't work, they should not be able to enjoy themselves either.
On disability a person is always encouraged to work. Always. People are encouraged to go out and improve their quality of life. Their full time 'job', however, revolves around their health. It has been concluded (by doctors, specialists, special programs, and several levels of government) that this person has a disadvantage - a disability - that prevents them from being able to work like they used to, or like most other people can, but that they still deserve a great life - just like anyone else.
Every single person deserves a holiday - a break from their daily life. Every single person deserves to de-stress and have some fun away from whatever their full-time job may be. I ask that the next time you hear of someone with a permanent disability going away for a weekend or hanging out at the movies one night, that you remember that they deserve a break too. The average healthy person DOES get a chance to get a complete break from whatever stresses they may have in his/her life. People with chronic illness or disabilities never get a break from their daily life. It is always there. Don't you think they deserve a little fun now and then to take their mind off of all of their pain, since they will never get away from it?
I sure do.