This post is part of the series: The Debriefing. Click to read all posts in this series.
Quick note: this post contains stuff that deals with issues of law and medical advice. While I always try to get things right, I am neither a doctor nor a lawyer, and my blog posts are not to be taken as such advice.
Among people I know for whom it is a going concern, medical identification is a controversial subject. For those not in the know, medical identification is a simple concept. The idea is to have some sort of preestablished method to convey to first responders and medical personnel the presence of a condition which may either require immediate, specific, treatment (say, a neurological issue that requires the immediate application of a specific rescue medication), or impact normal treatment (say, an allergy to a common drug) in the event that the patient is incapacitated.
The utilitarian benefits are obvious. In an emergency situation, where seconds count, making sure that this information is discovered and conveyed can, and often does, make the difference between life and death, and prevent delays and diversions that are costly in time, money, and future health outcomes. The importance of this element cannot be overstated. There are also some possible purported legal benefits to having pertinent medical information easily visible for law enforcement and security to see. On the other hand, some will tell you that this is a very bad idea, since it gives legal adversaries free evidence about your medical conditions, which is something they’d otherwise have to prove.
The arguments against are equally apparent. There are obvious ethical quandaries in compelling a group of people to identify themselves in public, especially as in this case it pertains to normally confidential information about medical and disability status. And even where the macro-scale political considerations do not enter it, there are the personal considerations. Being forced to make a certain statement in the way one dresses is never pleasant, and having that mode of personal choice and self expression can make the risk of exacerbated medical problems down the line seem like a fair trade off.
I can see both sides of the debate here. Personally, I do wear some medical identification at all times – a small bracelet around my left wrist – and have more or less continuously for the last decade. It is not so flamboyantly visible as some people would advise. I have no medical alert tattoos, nor embroidered jacket patches. My disability is not a point of pride. But it is easily discoverable should circumstances require it.
Obviously, I think that what I have done and continue to do is fundamentally correct and right, or at least, is right for me. To do less seems to me foolhardy, and to do more seems not worth the pains required. The pains it would cause me are not particularly logistical. Rather they refer to the social cost of my disability always being the first impression and first topic of conversation.
It bears repeating that, though I am an introvert in general, I am not particularly bashful about my medical situation. Provided I feel sociable, I am perfectly content to speak at length about all the nitty gritty details of the latest chapter in my medical saga. Yet even I have a point at which I am uncomfortable advertising that I have a disability. While I am not averse to inviting empathy, I do not desire others to see me as a burden, nor for my disability to define every aspect of our interactions any more than the face that I am left handed, or brown eyed, or a writer. I am perfectly content to mention my medical situation when it comes up in conversation. I do not think it appropriate to announce it every time I enter a room.
Since I feel this way, and I am also literally a spokesman and disability advocate, it is easy to understand that there are many who do not feel that it is even appropriate for them to say as much as I do. Some dislike the spotlight in general. Others are simply uncomfortable talking about a very personal struggle. Still others fear the stigma and backlash associated with any kind of imperfection and vulnerability, let alone one as significant as a bonafide disability. These fears are not unreasonable. The decision to wear medical identification, though undoubtedly beneficial to health and safety, is not without a tradeoff. Some perceive that tradeoff, rightly or wrongly, as not worth the cost.
Even though this position is certainly against standard medical advice, and I would never advocate people go against medical advice, I cannot bring myself to condemn those who go against this kind of advice with the same definitiveness with which I condemn, say, refusing to vaccinate for non-medical reasons, or insurance companies compelling patients to certain medical decisions for economic reasons. The personal reasons, even though they are personal and not medical, are too close to home. I have trouble finding fault with a child who doesn’t want to wear an itchy wristband, or a teenager who just wants to fit in and make their own decisions about appearance. I cannot fault them for wanting what by all rights should be theirs.
Yet the problem remains. Without proper identification it is impossible for first responders to identify those who have specific, urgent needs. Without having these identifiers be sufficiently obvious and present at all times, the need for security and law enforcement to react appropriately to those with special needs relies solely on their training beforehand, and on them trusting the people they have just detained.
In a perfect world, this problem would be completely moot. Even in a slightly less than perfect world, where all these diseases and conditions still existed, but police and first responder training was perfectly robust and effective, medical identification would not be needed. Likewise, in such a world, the stigma of medical identification would not exist; patients would feel perfectly safe announcing their condition to the world, and there would be no controversy in adhering to the standard medical advice.
In our world, it is a chicken-egg problem, brought on by understandable, if frustrating, human failings at every level. Trying to determine fault and blame ultimately comes down to questioning the nitty gritty of morality, ethics, and human nature, and as such, is more suited to an exercise in navel gazing than an earnest attempt to find solutions to the problems presently faced by modern patients. We can complain, justifiably and with merit, that the system is biased against us. However such complaints, cathartic though they may be, will not accomplish much.
This viscous cycle, however, can be broken. Indeed, it has been broken before, and recently. Historical examples abound of oppressed groups coming to break the stigma of an identifying symbol, and claiming it as a mark of pride. The example that comes most immediately to mind is the recent progress that has been made for LGBT+ groups in eroding the stigma of terms which quite recently were used as slurs, and in appropriating symbols such as the pink triangle as a symbol of pride. In a related vein, the Star of David, once known as a symbol of oppression and exclusion, has come to be used by the Jewish community in general, and Israel in particular, as a symbol of unity and commonality.
In contrast to such groups, the road for those requiring medical identification is comparatively straightforward. The disabled and sick are already widely regarded as sympathetic, if pitiful. Our symbols, though they may be stigmatized, are not generally reviled. When we face insensitivity, it is usually not because those we face are actively conspiring to deny us our needs, but simply because we may well be the first people they have encountered with these specific needs. As noted above, this is a chicken-egg problem, as the less sensitive the average person is, the more likely a given person with a disability that is easily hidden is to try and fly under the radar.
Imagine, then, if you can, such a world, where a medical identification necklace is as commonplace and unremarkable as a necklace with a religious symbol. Imagine seeing a parking lot with stickers announcing the medical condition of a driver or passenger with the same regularity as you see an advertisement for a political cause or a vacation destination. Try to picture a world where people are as unconcerned about seeing durable medical equipment as American flag apparel. It is not difficult to imagine. We are still a ways away from it, but it is within reach.
I know that this world is within reach, partially because I myself have seen the first inklings of it. I have spent time in this world, at conferences and meetings. At several of these conferences, wearing a colored wristband corresponding to one’s medical conditions is a requirement for entry, and here it is not seen as a symbol of stigma, but one of empowerment. Wristbands are worn in proud declaration, amid short sleeved shirts for walkathon teams, showing bare medical devices for all the world to see.
Indeed, in this world, the medical ID bracelet is a symbol of pride. It is shown off amid pictures of fists clenched high in triumph and empowerment. It is shown off in images of gentle hands held in friendship and solidarity.
It is worth mentioning with regards to this last point, that the system of wristbands is truly universal. That is to say, even those who have no medical afflictions whatsoever are issued wristbands, albeit in a different color. To those who are not directly afflicted, they are a symbol of solidarity with those who are. But it remains a positive symbol regardless.
The difference between these wristbands, which are positive symbols, and ordinary medical identification, which is at best inconvenient and at worst oppressive, has nothing to do with the physical discrepancies between them, and everything to do with the attitudes that are attached by both internal and external pressure. The wristbands, it will be seen, are a mere symbol, albeit a powerful one, onto which we project society’s collective feelings towards chronic disease and disability.
Medical identification is in itself amoral, but in its capacity as a symbol, it acts as a conduit to amplify our existing feelings and anxieties about our condition. In a world where disabled people are discriminated against, left to go bankrupt from buying medication for their survival, and even targeted by extremist groups, it is not hard to find legitimate anxieties to amplify in this manner. By contrast an environment in which the collective attitude towards these issues is one of acceptance and empowerment, these projected feelings can be equally positive.
