My dear departed wife, Esther (1920-2000), was inflicted by polio at age 10 ½ months, leaving a paralyzed left leg and deformed left foot. She

• overcame her disabilities;
• worked as secretary, editor;
• taught English, Spanish, French, Latin;
• at age 49. went back to school and, in 1970, earned an M.S. in Comparative Literature from the U. of Maine (Orono);
• won first prize in an essay contest of a national Spanish society;
• prepared for the State Department a historic survey of women in major American symphony orchestras, which resulted in hiring of many more women;
• created the first demographic data base of the National Park Service, resulting in the hiring of thousands of women and minorities for the Park Service;
• spent years inspecting accessability in DC parks;
• helped set up a computer network for DC parks;
• carried on research about historic contributions of women which I've turned into several websites;
• reared and helped educate two sons who received their doctorates and became university professors.

Living with Esther, I learned about the problems of disabled people, yet what some of them can do if they are able and try hard enough.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 finally brought some justice for disabled Americans. But a controversial aspect of it has been the prevalence of people who allegedly seek its "cover" for drug addiction.

We know that many people have been able to "quit the habit", become "cured", and return to "normal living". This is something that a physically disabled person such as Esther cannot do, as much as the person desires it.

This raises the question, "Who fits the best description of disabled, under this Act?"

There are "referees" available in this controversy. Physicians and therapists. It's "in their court". As part of their dailiy function, they can make the distinctions which would allow moneys to be dispensed to those most able to make use of them.

And to separate out some of those for whom "Disabled Person" is simply an SCD.