Posts by Rosemary McDonald
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Paths and ways, in reply to Tony P,
Seeing a lot more e-bikes on them too.
And perhaps the occasional wheelchair?
We'll park up at the Ellison St carpark. I'll unload Himself in his wheelchair with the flash e-motion wheels and send him off with a cheery haere ra.
Then watch him literally disappear into the distance.
This would be about the only place in New Zealand where I have absolutely no worries about Peter heading off on his own.
That pathway along the beach is dead flat, level and wide enough that he is in no danger of running off the edge. The myriad of other users are invariably courteous.
A truly wonderful asset.
-
Access: National Standards and the…, in reply to mark taslov,
I think it’s important to remain vigilant about this distinction as Hilary’s pointed out:
Uniformity, not creativity is the aim.
What struck me about this performance was the fact that the wee lass was barely vocal when she began at the school. (And the fact that the choir managed to remain reasonably still throughout a long performance.)
The first step, surely, on the road to creativity is finding a child's natural medium?
I'd be interested to know if the children were involved in writing the lyrics.
-
Access: National Standards and the…, in reply to mark taslov,
-
Public Address founder "refutes" Word of the Year reports
This must be the post-truth truth post.
-
Almost as if on cue, and after a very long and extremely intensive Needs Assessment which included the assessment being peer reviewed by two other NASCs, our NASC has managed to manage Peter's allocated supports into negative territory.
What was an allocation 56 hours of IF (which we've never used because me providing all of Peter's care works) and 100 days of the largely useless but nice to have to hand Carer Support Subsidy allocation.
We now have 56 hours of IF and 48 hours of Carer Support allocation.
This assessment was a routine three yearly one (albeit on steroids) with the overriding intention that it would be used to enable our NASC to coordinate with a Service Provider so that Provider would be familiar with Peter's care needs if I suddenly became incapable of providing his necessary supports.
In the real world, this would be called a Contingency Plan which is a perfectly sensible and sane thing to have when a person is completely dependent on another person for the very basic of care.
Two points which may be of interest.
1) Had Peter held off his transformation from a Walking Person to a tetraplegic for another four years, ACC would be making him sign a waiver if he refused 24/7 care. (And they would pay me as his carer)
2) The assessor who did the interRAI assessment had the "hours of informal care and active monitoring" as 33 hours over 3 days. 11 hours per day or 77 hours per week.
There has been no introduction to a potential Contingency Plan Service Provider...as was our very definitely stated goal for this assessment, just a statement from the NASC manager that he would provide us with a list of Providers so, I suppose, we can sort our own shit out should I become suddenly incapacitated.
So, we are now worse off than we were before.
Giovanni Tiso, name the time and place mate, we'll be there.
-
Relaxed
Because the the word just might fall out of usage now....
-
Taking my own advice (concerning, no?) I googled "high and very high support needs MOH DSS" and set the search tools to "NZ" and "past year", et voila! I arrive right back to this post on PA.
Page one, with the other hits being mainly from the Miserly, or IHC mentioning 'high and very high' peripherally.
No one is saying 'this is a problem and we need to sort it now.'
Other than here.
When were those people with high and very high support needs excluded from the happy clappy narrative put out by the Miserly saying that disabled people will live 'ordinary lives'?
When exactly was this group consigned forever to the too hard basket?
It is clear to me that the Misery expects family carers to take responsibility....and you know what?
They know that we will do just that.
Ideally we family carers should step back, fold our arms and say...."No, we are not going to facilitate your agenda to renege on your duty to provide safe and respectful supports to our loved ones, wait until we're dead or disabled ourselves and can no longer provide the care and then bung our loved one into the nearest residential facility to see out their possibly shortened days in the misery of compulsory incarceration."
We should, but we won't...and the bastards know this. They learned about the commitment made by family carers during the Atkinson hearings...and look how they have treated the plaintiffs....and have got away with it Scot free.
I was heartened by the story done by Mike Wesley Smith for The Nation. "Legislative lightspeed." Brilliant! I think he might have got it. And as Hilary said...his legal background gave him real insight into the magnitude of that shitty piece of work that is the Part4 amendment to the PHDAct and Funded Family Care.
And was very telling that no DPO or carers organisation was interviewed....where is the advocacy?
For those of you in Wellington...the Office for Disability Issues is hosting this...
https://www.hrc.co.nz/news/open-disability-forum-take-place/
The Minster for Disability issues is going to tell of the wondrous programs the government has in place for disabled New Zealanders. There will be an opportunity to ask questions...but they do prefer questions to be sent in prior, just so they can get the information asked for (of course).
It is just as well Peter and I are unable to indulge in a wee road trip as I fear in our current states of mind we might find ourselves (yet again) trespassed or firmly asked to leave,
-
Access: Help needed! Deciphering the…, in reply to Sacha,
Ah, but, if one googles 'nzdoctor disability' the magic of the interweb will allow a small(but very useful) number of articles one can read. But choose wisely...;-)
I am a slow learner...
-
Access: Help needed! Deciphering the…, in reply to linger,
Which in practice makes it a schistem, i.e. brittle and flaky, and not too far removed from something full of sh**.
Yep, you get it.
And we're also looking at a schism, i.e. a division between the official narrative and reality.
A gap that is unbridgeable, which leaves a whole lot of vulnerable people up the proverbial.
-
Hard News: From Zero: The Meth Episode, in reply to ,
Here is an academic document from the national addiction centre. I was surprised to find this paragraph in there:
Also....
Addiction as an erosion of free will.
The term addiction is derived from the Latin addictus referring to the relationship a slave had with his/her master - an enslavement.
Definition.