Families of autistic kids sue Disney parks over policy on lines

[Gomer]

You speak in generalities...

The thing that bothers me about this lawsuit is the entitlement people think they have with a disability. They expect everyone to hand them something. All they are teaching their kids is to be the same way. When they do not get their way then yell, scream, and throw a fit until they give in. It is sad that people view the world on this way.

...offensive terminology...

The child has something wrong with him but the parents do my want to find out.

...and false analogies...

I don't have an autistic kid, but I have a child with no patience. He is 20 months old and will have a meltdown if he has to wait a long time for something.

This thread was remaining a relatively civil and logical debate of issues with DAS and the legality/merits of the suit. Can we try to keep it that way so that the mods don't have to shut this one down as well? I don't know if you are purposefully trying to cause a battle here and I'm trying real hard to not take the bait, but posts like this will only take us to a place that gets this thread shut down. And I'm rather enjoying this debate and don't feel like going back to discussions of favorite quick service restaurants and whose screen based rides are worse than the others quite yet.

 

[Spikerdink]

Ohhh. Okay. See, I always thought that it was an either/or situation. That an autistic person could never handle the sensory input of something like a theme park. Thanks for the response.

Like others have said, every case of autism is different, and how/when/what interventions and services are provided make a huge difference. What I spoke about was my friend's experience.

One thing it has taught ME is that when I see a child in total meltdown mode, I don't give the 'this is what happens when you keep your child out past his/her limits' glance. Knowing what happened when we could not get Jack out of the park before fireworks was not a pleasant experience - and the looks, and scolding my friend took on while he tried desperately to get out of the park quickly with a screaming child in his arms were uncalled for.

Parents of handicapped children (and my best friend's older sister was born brain injured and as we were growing up together I saw tremendous sacrifices on members of their family) deal with more issues/heartbreak/ecstasy/disappointment/hurdles than I can hardly imagine how to handle. That being said, I understand what Disney has done, and I understand the changes. To my viewpoint, the new system provides a balance and while not perfect, is a good foundation that organizations that represent autism, development disabilities, etc will provide feedback with which Disney can use to improve the experience for those that need that 'assistance' and not improve the scammer's experience.

 

[flynnibus]

The problem with this is HIPPA laws.

Hippa has Zero relevance here. Try reading the law... It's very narrow and has nothing to do with you volunteering info and zero to do with an entity like a theme park

They refuse the info because the Ada forbids them to require it and they want no impression of interpreting medical conditions. They only want to know your limitations

 

[The Mom]

This thread was remaining a relatively civil and logical debate of issues with DAS and the legality/merits of the suit. Can we try to keep it that way so that the mods don't have to shut this one down as well? I don't know if you are purposefully trying to cause a battle here and I'm trying real hard to not take the bait, but posts like this will only take us to a place that gets this thread shut down. And I'm rather enjoying this debate and don't feel like going back to discussions of favorite quick service restaurants and whose screen based rides are worse than the others quite yet.

I rather hope that it is not a debate, but rather a discussion. I think that we can all learn by "hearing" another POV, rather than digging in our heels in defense of our own. We may not change our minds, but at least might consider the other side of the issue.

 

[Gomer]

I rather hope that it is not a debate, but rather a discussion. I think that we can all learn by "hearing" another POV, rather than digging in our heels in defense of our own. We may not change our minds, but at least might consider the other side of the issue.

Well said. You are correct. Discussion is a better word.

 

[Gabe1]

I have had to review Public school board policy for accommodations and put new policies into place. Even with our most disabled students we cannot offer immediate accommodations to all of our students with needs.

As a side note what I fear with these types of suits, jeopardizing what Disney does do unofficially, above and beyond the policy. As example bringing in a child and party into the exit side of Splash and quickly loading the group onto a boat. They discretely try to accommodate many families when they can and I'd hate for this practice to stop.

On this flip side I hope the DAS families realize and have respectful appreciation for how these special accommodations alter other guests experiences. On Splash where I observed this happen this week the group being serviced altered the experience of other families and not for the best. Where a general guest family going through queues, waited in the line, were placed in the final row queue as a party of 6, 3 rows. Last moment the special needs family was immediately placed without wait into 2 of the 3 rows displacing the already queued family. One row of the queued family boarded and the other two rows had to wait for those two boats to launch and another 2 boats to come forward. We saw the displaced family again at the boat photo's area unhappy they were split up and their opportunity for a family photo taken away by the special accommodation of the DAS family. They were totally confused as to why they were separated at the last moment. I do hope that the families that are presenting the suit do have appreciation for what other guests sacrifice at times for the special accommodations Disney does attempt to offer.

I have great appreciation for advocating for children but I also believe while advocating no one should loose sight of how immediate guaranteed accommodations alters other guests experiences. While this is a legal document, I'm not reading any regard to the overall impact of the operational procedures for other guests at Disney Parks when suing for the no wait guarantee for DAS. I'm anticipating Disney will represent the reasonable operational considerations if the courts allow this suit to move forward.

 

[ParentsOf4]

They refuse the info because the Ada forbids them to require it and they want no impression of interpreting medical conditions. They only want to know your limitations

The problems Disney face are largely because of the way ADA is written. ADA is full of great intentions but, like any piece of legislation, it's impossible to incorporate guidelines for all foreseeable circumstances.

More importantly, as we've seen on threads such as these, it's difficult to get a majority to agree to what is "right", "just", or "correct". For something as simple as whether proof of a medical condition should be required, I suspect there are scenarios when either one or the other option would be preferable.

One thing in the lawsuit that I believe to be grossly untrue is the suggestion that Disney acted maliciously. To act maliciously means to deliberately act harmfully. Disney is making a good faith effort to fully comply with ADA.

ADA specifically requires that "reasonable accommodations" be made. As used within ADA, reasonable does not mean fair; it means relatively easy for the private entity to institute.

As I interpret the law, if there were several instances where disabled guests legitimately needed to be accommodated with the equivalent of unlimited FP+, then Disney would have to provide it. From a legal perspective, I don't think this point is seriously debatable. As the phrase "reasonable accommodation" is used within ADA, the old GAC was a "reasonable accommodation".

To me, the disagreement appears to center around whether anyone could ever legitimately require the old GAC in order to accommodate their disability. To me, this is a medical question. Since I am not a medical professional, I cannot pass judgment on this aspect of the debate.

 

[David Matte]

It's an interesting situation because socially we have two different components.

First, we have individuals we specific medical concerns. I think I can safely say that myself and many of the people posting in these threads have no problem being patient and accommodating them. After all, if the roles were reversed we would hope that the sentiment would be shared. Second, the focus of discussion is less about whether those individuals need assistance and more about when it is appropriate for society to prioritize that assistance.

For the purposes of our discussion, we aren't really talking about whether if individuals deserve special accommodations. The question is really whether they should get instant, front of the line access to every attraction, and if so, how much of that access should be shared with others who don't share the disability? It's a very fine line for Disney.

The catch-22 is that no one can make the argument that visiting a theme park is crucial to living. As fun as Disney is, for many families it comes with hardship of various severity, whether financial or medical. I'm sure some visitors show up in private jets with limo rides to the GF, but I'm sure the vast majority of visitors make compromises to get there. Therefore, when they are in park and see some people get preferred treatment (deservedly or otherwise), it can be annoying. I don't share that sentiment, but we need to point it out.

There needs to be a balance between the needs to the individual versus the needs of the many. Riding Peter Pan is not necessary to lead a happy life, therefore it should be reasonable to expect everyone who isn't it unreasonable physical discomfort (subjective I know) to at least share some of the wait. I don't necessarily mean in line though. I understand that some disabilities are psychological in nature and standing in lines can be taxing, so personally I believe delayed front line entry is the only real option. The DAS individual checks in and given an appointment after which their party can board. There is no line to wait in, so the discomfort is minimized. The important part is that there is an attempt to appease society, however insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I personally have never had a problem with on demand, front line access for DAS holders. The only time I ever get annoyed is when I see non-DAS scooter/wheelchair front line access. I'm not sure Disney allows this anymore, but I remember seeing a family cart a kid with a broken arm around in a wheelchair and get front-line access with no DAS paperwork. The part that annoyed me was that it was obvious that the kid had no problem with their legs.

I don't think there is a clear answer. I do believe that at a minimum Disney should require a doctor's note affirming the disability for all DAS users if that already isn't the case.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

 

[mergatroid]

Not taking sides here and I haven't read every reply so apologies in advance if this has been discussed before. Do parents take their austistic children to the shops with them and if so do they get served immediately or have to queue? How about checking in at the airport and going through security and then waiting for the plane to board etc? What about going to the cinema, is there immediate access there too. The reason I ask is surely a lawsuit could be lodged agaist these companies too if they don't have a system?

For what it's worth, I have the utmost respect for those bringing up austistic children. My heart goes out to them and I'm sure that many things in life are very difficult and I can see how having little things made easier for them can improve their experiences. I think it would be the 'right thing' for Disney to do to allow autistic children to continue using the GAC, I personally would have no problem with that. But it then gets difficult as the parents of a child with no legs would complain that why should Autistic children get a GAC and yet their child doesn't, and then what about a child with learning difficulties of a different kind? It's a can of worms and whatever Disney do some people will feel discriminated against.

As for those who feel it wrong if Disney were to ask for proof of an illness, I just don't get this at all (and I have dystonia so I am classed as disabled myself). It seems some think it's degrading providing evidence (I get this from previous threads) and yet not degrading using an entrance that everybody knows is for disabled people? Sometimes life is cruel, no point blaming other people for that in my humble opinion.

 

[rob0519]

if it is "average" now, its because they were going above and beyond in what they provided, and an uncontrollable amount of people abused it. Give 'em an inch, they take a mile, etc.

Disney used to pride themselves about being well above average. The people who needed the assistance were not the ones abusing the system, yet it is them who paid for all the non-disabled people who abused it. Give THEM and inch and they took well more than a mile.

 

[rob0519]

The thing that bothers me about this lawsuit is the entitlement people think they have with a disability. They expect everyone to hand them something. All they are teaching their kids is to be the same way. When they do not get their way then yell, scream, and throw a fit until they give in. It is sad that people view the world on this way.

Here we go. Using a rather broad brush there aren't you? Saying that everyone or every family that is unfortunate enough to have a disability feels entitled and expects everyone to hand them something. Then yell, scream and throw a fit. Spoken like someone who has never had to deal with a disability other than from the outside looking in. How dare you insult so many people in so few sentences.

We have a 38 year old special needs son. He was born with a neurological abnormality which left him both physically and mentally disabled. We've worked every day of our lives to get and give him the best care we possibly can. The mental health systems in the country leave much to be desired for a myriad of reasons that do not need to be discussed here.

Have we had to fight to get him care at times, yes. Do we yell, scream and throw a fit to get, no. We may argue for what is needed, but there is a way to do it. Do we expect people to simply hand us anything, no.

We took him to WDW for a number of years before we even knew the GAC existed. No cast member even suggested to us there was such a thing. It was a challenge. We went early in the day or as late as possible to avoid long lines. After a cast member told us about the GAC, yes, it made his enjoyment of the parks that much greater. As I said in a previous post, yes, the GAC was abused, but not by the people that it was supposed to benefit, but by non-disabled people seeking some form of entitlement for their own personal reasons.

We have not experienced the DAS system yet and probably won't until sometime in 2015, so I will reserve my judgement on the system until then. We used a similar process at Universal last summer and no, he was not able to experience as many attractions as he could under the previous system, but those are the rules and we adjusted to them, just as we will need to adjust to the DAS.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Not taking sides here and I haven't read every reply so apologies in advance if this has been discussed before. Do parents take their austistic children to the shops with them and if so do they get served immediately or have to queue? How about checking in at the airport and going through security and then waiting for the plane to board etc? What about going to the cinema, is there immediate access there too. The reason I ask is surely a lawsuit could be lodged agaist these companies too if they don't have a system?

There's a difference between waiting and waiting for extended periods.

In practice if not in words, the old GAC was the equivalent of unlimited FP.

Even with FP, TSM and Soarin' were perhaps 10 to 20 minute waits.

However, if it was necessary to wait 120 minutes to check out from a grocery store ...

When it comes to airports, I travel a bit and on more than one occasion have interacted with families with children with autism. I've seen a few meltdowns at airports that the parents attributed to autism.

As I understand it, autism is a bit like intelligence in the sense that there is a range of abilities. I've been told that some families dealing with severe cases avoid travel, etc. You won't ever see these families at WDW. Others have no problem waiting but absolutely must keep to a routine, hold onto a familiar object, etc. There simply is no "one size fits all" description.

There's a ton of information on the Internet. You might consider researching the topic and see if it answers your question better.

What's clear is that a number of families with children with autism report some of the most joyful moments of their child's life are spent at WDW. There is just "something" about WDW that reaches their child like no other place in the world.

It is, after all, "The Place Where Dreams Come True".

 

[buseegal]

to TP2000:i have used system at 6 flags and the o ne difference is at return time I was sent straight to ride usually by way of exit. I would wait one maybe 2 cycles of ride and placed on by holding that ride section to get me on. have seen more than one family made unhappy as they had planned so they would be on same ride, now they were not. the main difference in the Disney plan is you are sent thru a line that still can have a wait

 

[Gabe1]

Here we go. Using a rather broad brush there aren't you? Saying that everyone or every family that is unfortunate enough to have a disability feels entitled and expects everyone to hand them something. Then yell, scream and throw a fit. Spoken like someone who has never had to deal with a disability other than from the outside looking in. How dare you insult so many people in so few sentences.

We have a 38 year old special needs son. He was born with a neurological abnormality which left him both physically and mentally disabled. We've worked every day of our lives to get and give him the best care we possibly can. The mental health systems in the country leave much to be desired for a myriad of reasons that do not need to be discussed here.

Have we had to fight to get him care at times, yes. Do we yell, scream and throw a fit to get, no. We may argue for what is needed, but there is a way to do it. Do we expect people to simply hand us anything, no.

We took him to WDW for a number of years before we even knew the GAC existed. No cast member even suggested to us there was such a thing. It was a challenge. We went early in the day or as late as possible to avoid long lines. After a cast member told us about the GAC, yes, it made his enjoyment of the parks that much greater. As I said in a previous post, yes, the GAC was abused, but not by the people that it was supposed to benefit, but by non-disabled people seeking some form of entitlement for their own personal reasons.

We have not experienced the DAS system yet and probably won't until sometime in 2015, so I will reserve my judgement on the system until then. We used a similar process at Universal last summer and no, he was not able to experience as many attractions as he could under the previous system, but those are the rules and we adjusted to them, just as we will need to adjust to the DAS.

I appreciate level headed guests like yourself. You presented your opinions and experiences well and very respectfully. It is open to interpretation but the way I comprehended the post you responded to was not a broad stroke poke at all the families and individuals utilizing DAS. I took the post as a candid swipe at the
16 individuals suing Disney in this particular lawsuit. The suit is kinda making me cringe too. Yes, it could limit how much a DAS guest can accomplish in a day but I don't know that this is specific to this group of DAS individuals. Most families have someone travelling with some type of limitations that cut into maximizing their touring days. A 5 hour wait for a Frozen Meet and Greet is horrid for the most able or disabled. I saw many 4-6 years olds without the ability to stand in a queue physically or emotionally for hours on end in the 90 degree heat last week. (I didn't stand in it, just observed those in the queues.) I think at some point parents need to just use good judgement regardless if their child has special needs or ordinary needs. When my kids were small we took longer but less stressful trips to WDW taking the pressure off in the value season of the fall when the lines were practically non existent. I admire you're way of visiting the parks, you seem to have a very rational approach.

I am technically a disabled person, I am hearing impaired and was also born with vision issues that caused focusing issues, sometimes I need to experience an attraction multiple times to focus in on everything. I could DAS it, I wouldn't, my choice. My DD was an IEP student with two disabilities so she was also special needs and to throw a monkey wrench into the school system she was also gifted intellectually, just graduating from a top university with honors, a semester early. I'm no stranger to advocating for myself or my kid over the years. Like you, I find most of the time being the squeaky wheel doesn't always work out for the best. Most people respond kindly when met with reasonable requests. When going to court because a select few want a guarantee of front of the line, no wait in line or anywhere, those type of requests are often met with resistance and many don't view that type of request as reasonable. I have found when I request the least amount of special services needed I am usually accommodated and because I am not asking for everything and more many make more accommodations than I've requested and do so happily.

 

[Mommy2cooper]

Gabe1's post really stands out to me. I agree the family should not have had to be separated. That totally wasn't fair! Personally for my family if that had happened and we knew they were together we would have insisted that wasn't going to happen. We'd wait for an extra few minutes for the next one. That would make me mad being in their shoes.

I too (as stated early on in the thread) have a disabled family member. He has PTSD really bad (Combat Vet). So much so that he can not stand in lines without totally freaking out and sometimes if he's not prepared sounds can be a trigger, but he's finally gotten control over that, somewhat. We have a service dog, but we have decided not to bring him on this trip. Personally, I think that there's nothing wrong with the "idea" of either system Disney has thrown out. I have a little concern about the experiences I've read about on here. In my book I'm grateful they offer anything for disabled people. I'm 100% OK with the idea of giving me a return time. If people use their fp+ correctly they can get a great deal of use out of the service. What I had planned is signing up for a ride with the card they give my husband then using my fast pass if there's time and enjoy another ride while we wait. If that isn't possible with time restraints there's tons of places I'd like to shop and or window shop or since we are big on photography I'd take some awesome photos. Either way how can you seriously be bored, mad and annoyed at Disney? Anything other than magically happy?? I have more issues with hearing of parents screaming and scolding their children in Disney and ruining the experience for the child. I also recently on another Disney board seen that a woman was OPENLY changing a diaper in the middle of the walkway completely exposing her baby. Now those are what I have issues with, not the system. I think they try so hard to make it as fair as possible and i'm so very grateful for what they provide. I personally have not used the service as our first trip is next week, but how can I complain??

The sad truth is those crappy people who'd BUY/RENT/ABUSE the policy make true disabled persons look bad. The people who do that should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately if they have the audacity to do this I surely doubt they'd be ashamed or sorry for their actions. They must be heartless.

The lawsuit...I can see how this could be accepted by an attorney (that's with me knowing some of the laws, even though this is not my area). When I was going through college I worked with a daycare. The children were all developmentally delayed. I eventually became a one on one teacher to a disabled little boy who had been diagnosed with autism. Do I think autistic children should get the card? Yes. After working with my one on one, these children could definitely benefit from having access. Some children can be functioning, but others.....not so much. Disney does need to look more into the disability.

Ok sorry I wrote a book there....

 

[Mouse_Trap]

As I interpret the law, if there were several instances where disabled guests legitimately needed to be accommodated with the equivalent of unlimited FP+, then Disney would have to provide it. From a legal perspective, I don't think this point is seriously debatable. As the phrase "reasonable accommodation" is used within ADA, the old GAC was a "reasonable accommodation".

To me, the disagreement appears to center around whether anyone could ever legitimately require the old GAC in order to accommodate their disability. To me, this is a medical question. Since I am not a medical professional, I cannot pass judgment on this aspect of the debate.

I don't agree with this bit, yes the GAC was a 'reasonable accommodation' however that is now replaced by DAS is an alternative form of 'reasonable accommodation'.

I don't think anyone could seriously argue they need an unlimited fastpass because this is a service Disney does not provide. If Disney did offer unlimited fastpasses then that could draw it into being considered 'reasonable accommodation'. Quoting from the ADA (below), It would be discrimination to offer a service to disabled people that is not provided non-disabled people just because they were disabled.

(ii) Participation in unequal benefit
It shall be discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.

(iii) Separate benefit
It shall be discriminatory to provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others.​

 

[David Matte]

The term reasonable accommodation is where I usually get confused. For example, if we were talking about the a Post Office or say a shopping mall, to be handicap accessible means that there is infrastructure in place to allow people in wheel chairs or other mobility enhancement devices access without undue duress, such as requiring them to use stairs. No where does it say that in addition to getting access that they be able to skip in front of the checkout line or bypass the lunch rush at Chick-fil-A.

The rules are meant to keep handicap people from getting screwed over, but what we are talking about is creating a situation where the handicap actually get more than the non-handicapped. Some believe that as long as the ride is accessible to everyone in the same fashion, then the handicapped and non-handicapped alike are effective getting the exact same experience, i.e. waiting in the same line. Therefore, everyone should be happy to be treated the same. The truth is, some people really do want special treatment. Sure, they bury it in good intention but it is what it is. Reasonable accommodation for some just means that everyone can access the attractions on equal terms. Whether they can participate in the attraction is up to the individual.

Please don't think I'm being terse, I'm being thought provoking intentionally. I believe Disney should provide all the services it can to those who really need it. I guess I shouldn't say it, but sometimes there is a point where, if you need all of these special services just to get through the day, maybe a theme park isn't the most appropriate place to be.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I don't agree with this bit, yes the GAC was a 'reasonable accommodation' however that is now replaced by DAS is an alternative form of 'reasonable accommodation'.

I don't think anyone could seriously argue they need an unlimited fastpass because this is a service Disney does not provide. If Disney did offer unlimited fastpasses then that could draw it into being considered 'reasonable accommodation'. Quoting from the ADA (below), It would be discrimination to offer a service to disabled people that is not provided non-disabled people just because they were disabled.

(ii) Participation in unequal benefit
It shall be discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.

(iii) Separate benefit
It shall be discriminatory to provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others.​

You raise some interesting points. It doesn't seem as if we'll ever agree on the interpretation of ADA but I do want to add in a few comments to your post.

I don't think anyone could seriously argue they need an unlimited fastpass because this is a service Disney does not provide. If Disney did offer unlimited fastpasses then that could draw it into being considered 'reasonable accommodation'.

WDW does provide this service as part of its expensive VIP package.

I don't agree with this bit, yes the GAC was a 'reasonable accommodation' however that is now replaced by DAS is an alternative form of 'reasonable accommodation'.

What criteria are you using to decide that DAS is a "reasonable accommodation"?

The crux of the plaintiffs' argument is that GAC is an accommodation that satisfies ADA but DAS does not.

ADA is not about "fair" in the way that many think it is. It's not a matter of "I waited 60 minutes so if someone with a disability also waits 60 minutes, then that fair."

This view of "fair" has nothing to do with ADA.

Instead, it's more along the lines of "If my disabled child is forced to wait 60 minutes to ride Peter Pan and has a meltdown as a result of that ADA-protected disability, then my child will be unable to participate in Peter Pan and that's not fair."

The plaintiffs are arguing that the old GAC was needed to accommodate their children's disabilities in order to provide an equal benefit. The plaintiffs are arguing that the new DAS does not sufficiently accommodate their disabilities and; therefore, is discriminatory. That's the entire basis of the lawsuit. Ultimately, the courts will decide.

However, as I wrote previously, whether DAS is a sufficient accommodation for a specific disability is not a legal one but a medical one. Only the medical community, particularly those with expertise with the treatment of Autism, can evaluate whether DAS sufficiently accommodates that specific disability.​

 

[mergatroid]

What's clear is that a number of families with children with autism reporting some of the most joyful moments of their child's life are spent at WDW. There is just "something" about WDW that reaches their child like no other place in the world.

It is, after all, "The Place Where Dreams Come True".

A very good point and I agree 100%. That's the reason I think it would be the right thing for Disney to allow autistic children to still use GAC, maybe with a doctors letter as proof etc. Unfortunately it doesn't seem the way they're deciding to go forward.

 

[lazyboy97o]

A very good point and I agree 100%. That's the reason I think it would be the right thing for Disney to allow autistic children to still use GAC, maybe with a doctors letter as proof etc. Unfortunately it doesn't seem the way they're deciding to go forward.

The old system became a problem because people realized they could claim something like autism. Requiring proof is just not going to happen.