I Couldn’t Even Get in the Door

A Rollator and Wheelchair User’s Experience Navigating Inaccessible Medical Offices

Often, when I venture out into the ‘real world’ on days I need my upright rollator, I’m reminded just how inaccessible that world can be for rollator and wheelchair users.  The places you would expect to be the most accessible, like doctor’s offices, are, in reality, often the least accessible.  This is especially true for the smaller medical practices in older buildings and at specialists’ offices.

Almost every doctor’s office I’ve visited using my rollator has been surprisingly difficult to navigate. First, many of the specialists I deal with have only one or two handicapped parking places in very overcrowded parking lots, and they always seem to be taken. 

I can understand that, and I park wherever I can, but often, the only way to get to the ramp that leads to the entrance if I’m not parked in the handicapped accessible parking spot means I have to walk in traffic to get to it, and that isn’t always safe.  So often, the sidewalks at medical practices lack curb cuts until you get to the actual handicapped ramp.  People who walk without assistance can utilize the sidewalks, but without appropriate curb cuts, wheelchair users and rollator users are forced to wheel behind parked cars that may back up at any minute, or risk rolling through the  driving lane.

I live in an area where the number of people with handicapped placards is much higher than the actual number of handicapped parking places available.  Our area has a large elderly population and honestly handicapped placards are held by a large percentage of our residents. 

I don’t judge people, if they have a placard, then their doctor certified that they met the requirements and that they need it; I’m not going to argue with that.  I realize many people have invisible disabilities, and I’m glad people get what they need. 

But I can’t imagine how hard it is for wheelchair users with so few accessible spaces available. Most need to extend a ramp to get in and out of their vehicle, and you can’t do that in a regular parking space; they aren’t wide enough.  So, if the accessible spaces are filled, they simply can’t get out of their van.

There are also people like me, who don’t necessarily need an oversized parking place, but I can only walk short distances.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to call inside a medical office to tell them that I’m outside in the parking lot, but because I can’t find a parking space close enough that I can actually walk in, that I’m going to be late. It’s great that they have an overflow lot across the street, but I can’t walk that far, even with my rollator. 

Once I get there, and find a parking space that is close enough that I can get in, I’m faced with the fact that there are rarely automatic or accessible doors at doctors’ offices.  The doors at doctors’ offices are typically security doors, and they are incredibly heavy, and nearly impossible to open while using an upright rollator. If you have weak arms or hands, or are a person seated in a wheelchair, they are next to impossible to open.

You have to remember, not every person in a wheelchair is being pushed by a caregiver.  Many wheelchair users are on their own, and have lightweight chairs they can push themselves, or powerchairs.  The doors to most doctor’s offices are not made to be opened from a seated position, or when both hands are occupied by a rollator or crutches.

Once you get inside the doctor’s office, the check-in desk is usually too high for a wheelchair user which makes checking-in a bit awkward.  As a rollator user, I don’t have that issue, but it does make me stand further back from the desk, and if they hand me a clipboard and pen, I can’t carry it and hold on to my rollator.  Rollators, like crutches, take both hands.  Holding it under my arm makes it awkward, too.

I’ve noticed there is almost never open space for a person in a wheelchair to “sit.” Instead, there are rows upon rows of chairs but with no designated open areas for wheelchairs to remain while waiting, which means they end up parked in the walkway, and that’s really awkward.  It must be frustrating to be in the way and there is nothing you can do about it.

As a rollator user, I can tell you, there is rarely a place where I can sit and keep my upright rollator within reach.  Usually, there are tables, or other rows of chairs in the way. Often, I have to ask other people to move so I can find a place I’ll fit. 

People are very nice about it, and often move without me saying a word, but sometimes, they are absorbed in their own issues, or busy on their cell phone, and they don’t notice.  It can be uncomfortable to have to ask people to rearrange themselves for me.  It’s hard to ask strangers ‘for a favor’ because the waiting room isn’t set up for the assistive devices many people use.

My upright rollator is customized, and many people are curious about it.  I tend to field questions from other people in the waiting room about where I got it, would it work for their aunt or mother-in-law, and that it looks so much better than a regular rollator.  I don’t mind answering their questions, but sometimes when you are at the doctor’s office, you aren’t at your best, and you’d really rather just be left alone.

Once you are called into a clinical room, you often have to follow a medical assistant down a long, narrow hallway.  They tend to walk very quickly, which is something people using rollators or crutches aren’t really able to do.  I can’t tell you how many times the medical assistant disappears around a corner, and I stand there lost until they come back looking for me. 

If there is an exam table, it often lacks grab bars or any way to use it safely. The token two-step platform attached to most exam tables offers little help for people with balance issues or who cannot safely climb steps. Adjustable exam tables that lower for patient access and then raise for the physician do exist, but very few medical practices actually have them.

Fortunately, most exam rooms have chairs in them.  The only problem is that my upright rollator is quite large, and often, it takes up the only vacant space in the exam room, leaving no room for the doctor or nurse to work.  I’m often told by the nurse that they need to move it outside of the exam room but can’t leave it in the narrow hallway because that would be a fire hazard.  When they say this, I always wonder what I’d do without my assistive device if there were a fire and I couldn’t get out by myself, and I was left by myself in an exam room with the door closed.  

They say they will bring it back when the exam is over. I cannot tell you how many times, even after I remind the doctor that I need it, the doctor leaves quickly and no one returns with my rollator. It is not safe for me to try to go searching for it on my own.

So I am left there, waiting until someone eventually comes, usually when a medical assistant arrives with the next patient. Then there is a sudden rush to locate my rollator and return it to me so the room can be turned over. Often this happens 20 minutes or more after the doctor, who always promises to let someone know, has already left.

More than once, I have resorted to calling out just to get someone’s attention, so I do not have to wait indefinitely. It is embarrassing, but honestly, they are the ones who should be embarrassed.

I want to be clear, I’m not here to shame doctor’s offices or their medical staff. Many staff haven’t been trained to realize that separating a disabled person from their assistive device is simply not an acceptable practice.

Some offices have a larger exam room for power wheelchair users or for patients who are much larger than a typical patient, but these rooms aren’t always available because of the variety of disabled patients who need to use it.

I understand that medical offices must serve patients with many different types of disabilities, and I do not expect them to anticipate every possible need. But some accommodations should not be considered unusual or optional. Patients who use rollators or wheelchairs are among the most common mobility-impaired visitors to any medical practice, so spaces that can safely accommodate them should be standard.

Features such as doors that are easy to open, front desks that are not so high that a shorter person or wheelchair user cannot see the receptionist, and exam rooms large enough to maneuver with a wheelchair or rollator are not extraordinary requests. They are basic elements of accessible healthcare.

Doctors’ offices do not intentionally set out to be inaccessible. Accessibility gaps are usually not about intent; they arise from not seeing the space from the perspective of a patient who cannot even open the door. No one may be trying to exclude disabled patients, but good intentions do not erase real barriers or their impact.

Seeing a doctor is stressful enough. For someone with a disability, there is something quietly discouraging about pulling into the parking lot and immediately wondering, “Can I even get inside?”

From that moment on, every step requires calculation. Will I find a parking spot close enough to walk from? Is the ramp actually usable, or too steep or tight for my rollator to navigate? Will I be able to open the door without help?

Once you’re inside, there is the stress of wondering, will I be able to sign-in at the desk?  Where will I be able to fit in the waiting room with my assistive device?  Will I be able to get on their scale when they take my weight?  Will I be left behind by a medical assistant rushing to the exam room, when I just can’t walk that fast?  Will I even fit into the exam room with my rollator?

What assumptions are being made about me just because of how I walk? If I bring someone with me, will the doctor talk to her instead of me, as if I am unable to understand or speak for myself? (Don’t worry — I always set them straight.) Will I be treated as a capable, intelligent adult? Will I be treated with dignity?

Will my medical concerns be taken seriously, or will I hear that familiar line, “This is probably just part of your disability progressing,” without any effort to investigate the real cause? Will my physical limitations lead the doctor to assume I am not willing or able to do the hard work required to recover from a separate condition? Will certain treatments or options simply not be offered to me because I am less mobile? Will I be seen as a “poor dear” whose quality of life is not worth the effort or assumed to matter less?

All of these questions would make anyone’s head’s spin.  The stress of a doctor’s visit is so intensified for a disabled patient. 

And if you happen to be a medically complex patient, you have the added worry that the doctor will only look at one small part of your complex medical issues, and never look at you as whole person with multiple medical needs.

Some of these barriers are physical, like the heavy doors, the too-steep ramp, or the cramped exam rooms.  But there are also so many attitudinal barriers as well, such as your intelligence being discounted due to the fact you have a physical disability, decisions to move a patient’s assistive device out of reach, or failing to offer newer treatments because your life is assumed to be limited anyway.

People with disabilities already know the world was not built with us in mind. Realizing that the very places meant to help us, medical offices, often present additional barriers to care only adds to that burden. These obstacles do not merely inconvenience us. They quietly exclude us and, at times, openly diminish us. No one should feel shut out of medical care simply because their mobility looks different.

I am not sharing this because I enjoy complaining or want special treatment. I am sharing it to offer a small glimpse into what it can be like to seek medical care as a person with a mobility difference.

I don’t for one second believe that medical offices don’t want to be accessible.  Many practices do not own their buildings and may have little control over the parking lot, ramps, or curb cuts. Still, accessibility laws exist for a reason. Property owners can be required to make needed improvements if a tenant insists on them. Practices also make decisions about where they lease space, and they can choose not to occupy buildings that fail to meet basic accessibility requirements. Occupying a space that doesn’t meet basic accessibility standards is ultimately a decision.

Most of the improvements needed to make doctors’ offices more accessible are not expensive. Many do not require major renovations. Small changes can make a meaningful difference.

Installing automatic door openers or adjusting door pressure, leaving intentional open spaces in waiting areas instead of filling every gap with chairs or displays, ensuring there is at least one flat, accessible unloading area near entrances, and training staff to recognize barriers and offer appropriate assistance are all practical steps that can dramatically improve access.

Accessibility is not about special treatment. It is about equal participation and equal access. Disability is the one minority group that anyone can join at any time. The shift from able-bodied to disabled can happen in an instant, through one accident, one illness, or one unexpected medical event.

Accessibility is not about convenience. It’s about dignity, safety, and the basic ability to participate in our own healthcare. When medical offices remove barriers, they are not offering special treatment. They are simply making it possible for patients to be patients. No one should have to fight their way into a doctor’s office before they can even ask for help. No one should ever have to say, “I needed help, but I couldn’t even get in the door.”

Accessibility Is a Leadership Decision

Accessibility Does Not Mean Everything for Everyone

Accessibility does not require that every space be usable by every person with every possible disability, nor has that ever been the standard. Absolute accessibility is neither realistic nor necessary. The relevant question for leaders is not whether perfection is possible, but whether reasonable and foreseeable barriers are being left in place without justification.

A rock-climbing wall, for example, cannot be made accessible to a person without upper or lower limb function without ceasing to be a climbing wall. These are legitimate limits and acknowledging them is not discrimination. It is clarity.

This image is titled the "Cycle of Exclusion & Invisibility."  It shows a four-part cycle.  First, the disabled people are unable to participate due to lack of accessibility.  Second, disable people are not visible at events (because they cannot access them.)  Third, people assume disabled people do not want to participate (since they never seem them there.)  Fourth, people believe there is no need to consider disbled people or to provide accessibiity (since they never see them at events) and this returns to the original part of the cycle, that disabled people are unable to participate due to a lack of accessibility.

Most public spaces and civic functions, however, do not fall into this category. Meeting rooms, polling places, sidewalks, libraries, schools, parks, public hearings, and community events lose nothing by being designed or renovated to be accessible. In these settings, barriers such as stairs without ramps, hallways being used for storage that makes them inaccessible for mobility-impaired people, meetings without captions or interpreters, inaccessible seating, or restrooms that cannot be utilized by wheelchair users do not serve the function of the space at all. They simply exclude people.

The False Dilemma of “You Can’t Include Everyone”

When leaders argue that “you cannot include everyone,” they often confuse real limitations with design choices that could easily be changed. This framing creates a false dilemma that justifies inaction. The appropriate standard is inclusion wherever access does not interfere with the intended function of the space, and exclusion only where that function would be fundamentally altered.

Doing nothing about accessibility is still a decision about who gets to participate. It is a policy decision that prioritizes convenience, tradition, or cost over participation. Effective leadership treats accessibility as infrastructure rather than accommodation, assumes disabled people will be present, and removes barriers that exist only because no one in authority bothered to question them.

The Problem with “Accessibility Reactions”

But another way of not planning for accessibility is by doing “accessibility reactions.” Accessibility reactions are when new or modified accessibility is determined only by requests from a single family seeking a modification for one specific disabled child, family member, or small, yet vocal advocacy group. Leaders and front-end staff should of course respond with care and urgency when a need is raised, but the request should also trigger a broader question: is this an isolated situation, or is it a visible symptom of a larger access gap that affects many disabled people?

If accessibility is handled only through one-off requests, communities risk investing time and money in highly specialized solutions that serve one person while leaving larger, more basic barriers untouched. That approach can create the appearance of inclusion while continuing to exclude a far greater number of people from essential services, public participation, and civic life.

Baseline Access Must Come First

A better approach is to look for baseline access barriers first and then layering individualized accommodations on top of that foundation when needed. For example, a city might install a wheelchair-accessible swing at one park to meet the needs of a child who uses a heavy electric wheelchair. That may be a meaningful improvement for that family, but it does not address the larger question of whether wheelchair users can access the pavilions at any of the parks, whether there is usable seating throughout the space, or whether restrooms and pathways are truly accessible.

Similarly, holding a major public meeting in a venue where the only seating is bleachers sends a clear message about who is expected to attend. Even if staff are willing to “make adjustments” on request, the default setup already excludes wheelchair users and others who cannot use bleachers. If leaders want participation, access cannot be optional, improvised, or dependent on individuals having to ask for what should have been anticipated.

When Easy Fixes Replace Real Solutions

Too often, community leaders are willing to address accessibility issues that are easy, visible, and politically safe, while avoiding harder, more systemic barriers that require coordination, enforcement, or internal conflict. Installing a ramp in a location where there is ample space and minimal pushback may be straightforward.

Addressing the fact that on-street parallel parking is the only parking available, making access impossible for wheelchair users, is not. Enforcing laws against residents who block sidewalks with parked cars is not. When people park across sidewalks so they can fit more vehicles into their driveways, they block access not only for wheelchair users, but also for people using rollators, parents with strollers, and others with mobility needs.

Yet these violations are often ignored because enforcing them would require police departments, public works, and local leadership to prioritize accessibility over convenience. When a police chief dismisses parking enforcement by claiming there are more important things to do, the result is predictable. Disabled people are the ones who lose access to essential meetings, services, and civic life.

Internal power struggles and departmental avoidance may be invisible to the public, but their impact is not. When leaders fail to resolve these conflicts, accessibility becomes optional, and people with disabilities pay the price.

When Accessibility Exists Only on Paper

Another critical and often overlooked area is code enforcement. Many communities are diligent about regulating visible, easily measured requirements such as the number of designated accessible parking spaces in shopping centers, which are typically calculated by square footage and routinely inspected. These requirements are clear, familiar, and relatively easy to enforce.

Accessibility inside buildings, however, is far less consistently monitored. Small stores and boutiques often fill their spaces with merchandise to the point that aisles are too narrow for a wheelchair user, a person using a rollator, or someone with mobility limitations to even enter the store, let alone shop independently. Beauty shops and nail salons, particularly those that are independently owned rather than national chains, frequently create similar barriers. In an effort to maximize revenue, they install too many service stations or crowd their floors with product displays, leaving insufficient space for disabled customers to navigate safely or reach services. These barriers are rarely checked proactively. At best, they are addressed only after a complaint is filed, and even then, follow-up is inconsistent or incomplete.

The same pattern appears in restaurants and public buildings where accessible restrooms technically exist, but hallways leading to them are blocked by boxes, stacked chairs, or stored equipment. When access routes are obstructed, the presence of an accessible restroom becomes meaningless. In many retail stores, accessible changing rooms are routinely used for storage, filled with boxes of hangers, incoming stock waiting to be put out, or outgoing trash, rendering them unavailable to the people who need them.

In larger buildings, elevators that serve both the public and janitorial staff are frequently treated as storage or transport space. Trash bins, laundry carts, bundled linens, or bags of refuse are left inside, sometimes for extended periods. When this happens, a disabled person may be completely blocked from reaching another floor, with no way to alert staff or meeting participants that access has been cut off.

Outdoor access is undermined in similar ways. The striped access areas next to designated parking spaces are often blocked by motorcycles or street-legal golf carts. This can make it impossible for a wheelchair user to deploy a ramp or safely exit their vehicle. In some cases, people return to their cars only to find they must wait until the motorcycle or golf cart owner reappears, which is especially dangerous in extreme heat, high winds, or heavy rain. Sidewalks are also frequently obstructed by bicycles or scooters chained to poles and traffic signs, blocking passage for hours at a time. When this happens, disabled people who are stopped by the obstruction often have no practical way to resolve the situation.

In each of these cases, accessibility exists on paper but not in reality. Without consistent enforcement and clear accountability, basic access can be undone by everyday operational decisions. The result is predictable. People with disabilities are excluded from spaces and services they are legally entitled to use, not because access was impossible, but because maintaining it was not treated as a priority.

Rethinking “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number”

For community leaders, the answer to accessibility cannot be reduced to the old adage of “doing the greatest good for the greatest number,” because that logic breaks down the moment disability is involved. If left unchallenged, it simply becomes a way to justify serving the largest non-disabled majority while treating disabled people as a secondary concern or an added expense. That is not sound leadership.

Accessibility is not about maximizing convenience for most people. It is about removing barriers that prevent entire groups from participating in shared civic life. The right question is not “who represents the largest group,” but “who is being prevented from entering, participating, or being heard at all.”

When leaders focus on removing the barriers that fully block participation, access decisions become clearer and more defensible. Designing for people who are most likely to be excluded almost always improves the experience for everyone else as well. Ramps also help parents with strollers and workers with carts. Clear signage benefits visitors and first-time attendees. Wider aisles reduce congestion and improve safety.

Accessibility works best when it is treated as a requirement for full participation, not as a favor or an exception. A community should be judged by whether people with the least power can take part without having to ask for special permission or extraordinary help.

Making Hard Choices with Limited Resources

Communities also have to acknowledge that accessibility decisions are made within real budget limits. City and county resources are not infinite, and leaders are often faced with difficult choices, such as whether to allocate funds to make one public building accessible or to direct those same funds toward improving access in a park, library, or transportation corridor.

These decisions are especially complex in historic communities, where many civic buildings were constructed long before accessibility standards existed. Stair-only entrances, inadequate or poorly placed ramps, buildings without elevators, and narrow interior layouts are common. Mixed-use neighborhoods further complicate the issue, with government offices, private homes, apartments, and businesses sharing limited on-street parking and constrained public space.

Acknowledging these constraints is necessary, but it cannot become a reason for inaction. Prioritization must be guided by impact.

Leaders should focus first on changes that open access to essential services, public decision-making, and daily civic participation for the greatest number of people. When budgets are limited, the question is not whether accessibility can be afforded everywhere at once, but whether investments are being directed where exclusion is most severe and consequences are highest.

In historic communities especially, thoughtful planning, phased improvements, and coordinated use of funds are essential to avoid preserving tradition at the expense of participation.

Accessibility as a Measure of Leadership

At its core, accessibility is a leadership decision. It reflects whose time, presence, and participation are valued enough to plan for in advance. Communities already make choices every day about where to invest, what to enforce, and which problems are considered urgent. Accessibility belongs in those decisions.

Accessibility is not achieved through good intentions or symbolic gestures. It is built through planning, enforcement, and follow-through. Communities that treat access as optional, reactive, or secondary inevitably create systems that work only for those already able to navigate them.

Communities that plan for access make a different choice. They recognize that participation in civic life is not a privilege reserved for those who can climb stairs, fit into narrow aisles, or advocate loudly for themselves. It is a shared responsibility. Leadership is not defined by how well a community preserves convenience or tradition, but by whether it makes room for people who have too often been pushed aside or left unheard.


Why Disabled People Are Still Shut Out of Leadership – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

Why Disabled People Are Still Shut Out of Leadership

If you think ableism is just about rude comments or outdated language, you couldn’t be further from the truth. It runs far deeper than that. Ableism is structural. It is embedded in how our communities are designed and who is allowed to shape them.

You can see this most clearly when disabled people are shut out of leadership and decision-making roles—by the very glass ceilings and systemic inaccessibility that prevent us from rising into those positions in the first place. Yes, disabled people are sometimes “included,” but too often only as symbolic representation, limited to one narrow or convenient form of disability access.

These are not accidents. They are the predictable outcomes of excluding disabled people from authority and leadership.

This is what happens when disabled people are pushed to the margins instead of trusted as experts in our own lives. And it shows up everywhere.

  • No accessible entrances.
  • Accessible bathrooms used as storage for boxes and supplies.
  • Baby-changing tables mounted so high a wheelchair user couldn’t possibly reach them.
  • Inaccessible public meetings.
  • Housing policies built around a mythical “one size fits all.”
  • Services optimized for cost savings instead of human impact.
  • “Alzheimer’s” jokes tossed around casually.
  • Public meetings held without sign-language interpreters.
  • Schools without adapted facilities.
  • The R-word still being used as a punchline.

And the list goes on.

Ableism is so ingrained in our society that many people don’t even see it anymore. It’s normalized, excused, and minimized. Most people aren’t even aware they’re being ableist until someone points it out, often after harm has already occurred.

Representation cannot be merely symbolic. It is too important for that. Current statistics estimate that one in ten people has a disability. So why aren’t one in ten politicians disabled? Why aren’t one in ten CEOs disabled? If one in ten people has a disability, why are so few leaders disabled? 

And while there is no single, universally agreed-upon statistic for daily wheelchair use in the U.S., multiple sources estimate that approximately one in forty people use a wheelchair as their primary mobility device. When was the last time you saw a top politician or community leader who was a daily wheelchair user? What about community planners, landscape designers, or architectural designers? 

If one in approximately 40 people are wheelchair users, why isn’t a single member of the House of Representatives a daily wheelchair user?  Why is only one member of the Senate an occasional wheelchair user?  There are 535 voting members of Congress, and yet, only one is a wheelchair user. 

If Congress reflected the general U.S. population, you would expect about 13–14 daily wheelchair users among its members.  In reality, there is only one wheelchair user. 

Obviously, some professions have essential physical requirements that naturally exclude wheelchair users. You would not expect to find NFL players who are daily wheelchair users, nor active-duty firefighters, combat soldiers, roofers, or commercial airline pilots.

These are roles in which the core physical functions of the job genuinely cannot be performed from a wheelchair. This is not discrimination; it is reality. It would be no more reasonable than expecting a deaf and non-speaking person to be an opera singer, or a person missing both upper and lower limbs to be a rock climber.

There are, in fact, a small number of professions where essential physical requirements naturally exclude wheelchair users or people with other disabilities, but they are the exception, not the rule. Yet these few examples are routinely used to justify exclusion everywhere else.

When we talk about the absence of people with disabilities, community and political leadership do not fall into that category. Our leaders come from a wide range of backgrounds, professions, communities, and educational paths. These roles are not defined by physical endurance, speed, or mobility, but by judgment, experience, and the ability to serve

The absence of disabled leaders isn’t accidental. Leadership in the U.S. has long been built around an able-bodied ideal, and when disability appears, it’s either hidden, reframed, or erased. 

When disabled people are in leadership, systems shift. Barriers are anticipated instead of apologized for later. Access is built in, not patched on afterward. Exclusion is prevented, not explained away.

Nothing changes unless we, disabled people and those who support full accessibility, use our voices. Real change does not come from isolated stories spoken into the social-media void. It comes from collective pressure, shared advocacy, and disabled people showing up together where decisions are actually made — if we can get through the door, up the steps, or find accessible seating.


Reimagining Accessibility:  Undoing Ableism Among  Disabled and Medical Communities – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

Can I or Should I? Living With Disability, Risk, and Hard Choices

A hostess at the hostess stand of a fancy restaurant is talking on the phone, answering a question.  Her answer is, "Yes, we're accessible, once you get past the front steps."  There are three steps patrons must get up to eat in the restaurant.   Some able-bodies people don't understand that isn't really accessible at all.

Being disabled doesn’t always mean I can’t do something. Sometimes I can but doing it would come with a cost that more able-bodied people do not see and do not understand.

The truth is this; able-bodied people rarely find themselves in a position where they have to choose between doing something they really want to do and incurring long-term pain or even an injury that could put them in the hospital.  For people with life-limiting conditions, we have to face this option often.

So, the question isn’t can I, it’s should I?  And most of the time, the honest answer is no.

Will I sometimes do it anyway? Yes. But that choice has to be rare and made with caution, because even when I can do something, I will still pay for it later with pain, fatigue, soreness, a flare, or even a long-term injury.

Sometimes the situation truly warrants that cost. If a child were injured at the bottom of a stairway, and there was no one else to help,  I would take that risk without hesitation, even knowing it could hurt me or cause me to fall. Some moments have a moral component that calls for action despite the risk.   

But that is a rare exception.  Something like visiting a new nightclub, eating at a fabulous restaurant, or any kind of optional outing that requires me to risk a fall or a broken bone is a situation where I can’t afford to take the risk. In those cases, the cost is not reasonable, and saying no is the responsible choice.

Living with a life-limiting condition means constantly weighing the risks against the consequences. Every yes has consequences.  This is not about fear or unwillingness. It is about reasoning, responsibility, and life experience. When I say no, I am not being difficult or dramatic. I am making a deliberate choice to protect my health, my safety, and my ability to function tomorrow and beyond. That is not weakness. It is wisdom learned the hard way.


Here are more reflections on living with a disability, chronic illness, or a life-limiting condition.

When Change Sneaks Up on You – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

My Story Isn’t Public Property  – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

Designer Shoes and Disability: Why Judging Others Is Obscene – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

Disabled People Don’t Need Permission to Enjoy Life – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

We’ve Been Gaslit So Long, We Gaslight Ourselves – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life.

Busting Disabled Parking Myths: Facts About Handicap Placards

A bright yellow background with colorful cursive words that say, "Don't Judge a Disability by its Visibility."

🚫 Busting Disabled Parking Myths ♿️

Disabled people are facing increasing harassment for using disabled parking placards (handicap hang tags & license plates). Let’s get the facts straight.


🔴 Myth 1: “You don’t look disabled.”

✅ Fact: There is no single “disabled look.” Many disabilities are invisible, fluctuating, or not obvious to strangers. Some conditions, such as lung or heart disease, may not be visible at all but can severely limit how far a person can safely walk.


🔴 Myth 2: “You are too young to need a disabled parking placard.”

✅ Fact: Disability has no age requirement. Children, teens, and adults of all ages can have serious medical conditions that limit mobility, endurance, or safety.


🔴 Myth 3: “Disabled parking is only for wheelchair users.”

✅ Fact: Disabled parking is for people whose disabilities affect mobility, pain, fatigue, breathing, balance, safety, or the ability to walk distances, not just wheelchair users.


🔴 Myth 4: “If you can walk, you shouldn’t have a disabled parking placard.”

✅ Fact: Being able to walk is not the same as being able to walk safely, repeatedly, or without severe pain or exhaustion.


🔴 Myth 5: “People get disabled parking placards easily.”

✅ Fact: The application process is medical, evidence-based, and often difficult. Many people are wrongly denied and must appeal.


🔴 Myth 6: “Disabled parking misuse is widespread.”

✅ Fact: Fraud exists, but it is rare. Media outrage exaggerates the issue while ignoring the real harm caused by the harassment of legitimate placard holders.


🔴 Myth 7: “Challenging people protects disabled parking.”

✅ Fact: Public policing harms disabled people, not fraudsters. Enforcement is the responsibility of local authorities, not strangers in parking lots. Disabled people do not owe anyone an explanation of their disability or why they use a disabled parking placard. If a placard is displayed, a medical professional and the state have already determined eligibility.


⚠️Disabled parking is an accessibility tool, not a privilege. Trust the system, respect the placard, and let disabled people move through the world without fear of confrontation. Disabled parking exists to reduce harm and increase access, not to invite judgment or interrogation. Most disabled people are already navigating pain, fatigue, and medical uncertainty. The last thing they need is to defend their legitimacy in a parking lot. A little restraint and respect go a long way. ‼️


Other

articles you might enjoy:

Designer Shoes and Disability: Why Judging Others Is Obscene – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

Disabled People Don’t Need Permission to Enjoy Life – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

Disability Benefits Myths & Facts – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

My Story Isn’t Public Property  – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

When Accessibility is Treated Like an Option – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life


Many Wheelchair Users Can Still Stand and Walk

When most people picture a wheelchair user, they imagine someone who cannot walk at all. In reality, that description only fits a small minority of wheelchair users. Many people who use wheelchairs can stand or walk short distances but rely on mobility aids for safety, energy management, or independence. Wheelchair use is not always about the inability to walk. It is often about the cost of walking: physically, energetically, and emotionally.


Why People Use Wheelchairs

A group of friends, including one friend in a wheelchair, chat, laugh, and have a good time.  The caption on the photo says, "Belonging is something we all deserve."

“Why do people use wheelchairs?” It seems like a simple question: “Because they can’t walk.” But that answer leaves out most wheelchair users. Many can take a few steps or stand briefly, yet walking may cause pain, fatigue, dizziness, or imbalance. A wheelchair provides a safer, more sustainable way to move through the day and participate in activities they might otherwise have to skip.

Mobility and stamina can vary greatly from day to day, depending on pain levels, fatigue, or symptom flare-ups. Some people use a wheelchair occasionally, while others rely on one regularly. During busy periods or stressful times, wheelchair use often increases as people try to manage symptoms while still engaging in daily life. Rather than symbolizing limitation, a wheelchair often represents freedom, safety, and inclusion.


How Common Is Ambulatory Wheelchair Use?

There is no official U.S. statistic separating wheelchair users who cannot walk from those who can. However, national surveys show that most wheelchair users report conditions such as arthritis, stroke, multiple sclerosis, or orthopedic disease, conditions that often allow partial mobility. Only a smaller share cite complete paralysis. In short, many wheelchair users are ambulatory, while a minority are completely unable to walk.

Ambulatory wheelchair users are those who can walk or stand to some extent but use a wheelchair to conserve energy, reduce pain, or prevent falls. Many chronic illnesses are unpredictable. Someone might walk into a restaurant one day and need their wheelchair the next.

Outsiders sometimes misinterpret this variability as inconsistency or exaggeration, when it is actually a hallmark of fluctuating conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), or chronic pain disorders.

Conditions that often involve partial mobility include arthritis, lupus, POTS, long COVID, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, neuropathy, and spinal or joint disorders. Being able to take a few steps does not mean someone can walk safely, consistently, or without pain.


Myths and Misconceptions

Myth: Wheelchairs are only for people who cannot walk.
Fact: Most wheelchair users can walk, just not safely, consistently, or far enough.

Using a wheelchair is not giving up or taking the easy way out. It is choosing safety, independence, and participation over exhaustion, injury, or isolation. Some ambulatory wheelchair users walk indoors but use their wheelchair in airports, shopping centers, or places that require long distances. Others use it during flare-ups, in bad weather, or when fatigue or dizziness increases.

Unfortunately, mobility aids are sometimes viewed as a “last resort,” but early use can prevent overexertion, falls, and long-term damage. Insurance policies and medical gatekeeping often make it difficult for ambulatory users to access appropriate equipment, reinforcing the myth that wheelchairs are only for those who cannot walk.


A Tool of Liberation, Not Limitation

For many people with chronic illness, a wheelchair is not a symbol of paralysis; it is a symbol of freedom. It allows them to attend events, travel safely, and enjoy life without collapsing in pain or exhaustion. Being able to walk a few steps does not mean someone can walk a few blocks, stand in a long line, or navigate uneven ground. The ability to walk does not erase the need for wheels.


Energy Budgeting and Wheelchair Use

Energy budgeting, sometimes called energy management or spoon theory, is one of the least understood aspects of chronic illness. Think of energy as a limited daily allowance, like money in a checking account. Healthy people start the day with a full balance, but people with chronic conditions begin with a smaller and less predictable budget. Every activity, physical, mental, or emotional, withdraws energy: showering, dressing, cooking, walking, holding a conversation, or managing pain. When the account runs dry, symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or dizziness worsen, and recovery can take hours or days. Energy budgeting is the process of spending that limited energy wisely to avoid “crashes” or flare-ups.

A wheelchair plays an essential role in this budgeting process. It is not only about whether someone can walk but about how much energy walking costs and whether it is worth spending that energy. Someone with arthritis may walk across a room but lose the energy needed to cook or socialize later. A person with POTS or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome might stand for a few minutes but faint or dislocate a joint if they push too far. A person with multiple sclerosis might walk short distances but use a wheelchair to prevent fatigue or heat-related symptoms. By using a wheelchair, they conserve energy for the things that bring meaning and joy, not just survival. A wheelchair is, in this sense, a powerful budgeting tool; it allows people to save their energy for what matters most.


Final Thoughts

Wheelchair use is not simply about whether someone can walk. It is about the effort, pain, and risk that walking may cause. For people with chronic illnesses, walking even short distances can deplete the limited energy they need for self-care or participation in daily life. Using a wheelchair helps them prevent fatigue, reduce pain, and live more fully. A wheelchair does not represent loss; it represents access, safety, and choice—the freedom to live life on one’s own terms.


Other articles that might interest you are:

Disabled People Don’t Need Permission to Enjoy Life – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

The Disability Catch-22 – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life

Disability Benefits Myths & Facts – Jan Mariet’s A Day in the Life