Posts by Rosemary McDonald
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Hilary Stace,
But you could go along to a meeting and ask.
We did.
And while we were doing the final round up, the talk fest at the end where each group's spokesperson tells all assembled the most important talking points....the words of this woman kept coming into mind mind.
It Ain't Exactly Sexy. . .
To put it bluntly -- because this need is as blunt as it gets -- we must have our asses cleaned after we shit and pee. Or we have others' fingers inserted in our rectums to assist shitting. Or we have tubes of plastic inserted inside us to assist peeing or we have re-routed anuses and pissers so we do it all into bags attached to our bodies. . . .
If we are ever to be really at home in the world and in ourselves, then we must say these things out loud. And we must say them with real language. So they are understood as the everyday necessity and struggle they are.
. . . If our shame tells us that our needs lack dignity, that we lack dignity, then the next thing we hear our shame say is that it is more dignified to die than to live with these basic needs that take away our privacy and seem like such a burden.From "It Ain't Exactly Sexy" by Cheryl Marie Wade, in the November, 1991 Disability Rag -- reprinted in THE RAGGED EDGE
The Disability Experience from the Pages of the First Fifteen Years of The Disability Rag. quoted in this article.Cheryl Marie Wade wrote this piece after finding that during the battle for disability rights to become part of American law...it was other disabled people who had the hardest problem accepting that for some there is an absolute need (and don't the 'community' hate that word) for hands on care, every single day. That without this level of hands on care, 'life' simply cannot happen.
You'd think that in a meeting with other members of the disability community in 2016, someone living with that same need for care would feel that their primary concern was listened to respected and acknowledged as being an important issue in the discussion about the revised New Zealand Disability Strategy. Especially since the whole Paid Family Carers/ Part 4 PHDAct/ Funded Family Care shit storm, that even the UN Monitoring committee found reprehensible.
And in an effort to be less 'demanding' of his right to "care", the idea (trying to get into the "Big Sky" thinking mode) of perhaps taking the original 15 Objectives of the 2001 Strategy and linking them to the appropriate Articles in the Convention....to bring both documents together...well you'd think that might have been worthy of a mention from our group's spokesperson as a way of strengthening both...
Well, no.
We offered up the Ministry for Disability idea, and the idea of having a "like minds, like mine" publicity campaign to raise the image of disabled people in the eyes of the public.
Both very laudable....but not exactly doing much to address the reality that for some in the 'community'...the need for an entitlement to care, delivered by the carer of their choice, in the environment of their choice... is paramount.
No other issue really counts unless this basic need is acknowledged by all.
-
Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM,…, in reply to izogi,
Carolyn Robinson tweeted: "Goodbye Weldon.
Don't trip on the ruins you created as you leave. -
Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM,…, in reply to linger,
Not yet; wait until he starts using his toothbrush creatively onscreen.
Then perhaps the remaining audience might finally bristle in response…Very good :-)
The more I hear about what is offered up for consumption on television these days, the more my gratitude towards the little shits who robbed us in December 2014 taking, amoungst other stuff, our goggle box increases.
-
Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM,…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Shit finally hitting the fan today for Mediaworks wrecker Mark Weldon?
He’s hitting the ‘Hilarity Barrier’ at speed…
He's certainly shitting hilariously with this...
I do believe the full depths have been sounded.
-
Oops! I broke the PA word limit again...here is the report I refer to above..
-
Apologies for digging up this smelly corpse, but I just wanted to deposit a wee bit of information regarding this case, somewhere, safe.
Back …
In May 2007, the Minister of Labour asked NACEW for advice on providing financial support to family members who cared for people experiencing ill-health, disability, mental illness or addiction, or frailty in their old age.
Which they did, and the report was published in March 2008.
The “Atkinson” case headed to the Tribunal in September 2008.
The NACEW report made five recommendations…
The core role of family carers be recognised as providing emotional and associative support, which cannot be easily replaced by formal services.
The best way to support family carers is to complement their core role by ensuring there are comprehensive care services for clients at home, through increasing the quality and quantity of formal care services.
As recommended in NACEW’s report Improving the Quality of Work for Women in the Homecare, Residential and Cleaning Sectors, improving the quality of the formal services provided in the home requires the precariousness of employment in this sector to be addressed.
That care plans and packages be based on the level of client need, not on assumptions of the availability of family care.
That clients and family carers, in consultation with funders, can opt for some aspects of care packages to be undertaken, for pay, by family carers.and, according to the document I’m quoting from, the report would be published in the Family Care New Zealand magazine…the magazine published by the MOH/MSD funded Carers NZ.
I do not recall this report being highlighted in Family Care NZ…but I do recall that Carers NZ did not support family carers of those with high and very high care needs being paid a wage.
Which is weird, as the report, the one funded by the government, actually does recommend that for the group that “Atkinson” involves…
The payment would be made for explicit roles required within customised client care
plans. Family carers could have other paid employment. The only requirement for a
family member to receive payment for care work would be that they provide the
designated services. The arrangement is most likely to occur when the care need is
long-term and predictable, as in the case of a person with tetraplegia, or short-term and
intensive, such as the care of someone who is terminally ill.Now…NACEW __was__under the auspices of the good old Department of Labour, which was absorbed by MOBIE. MOBIE didn’t want NACEW, and sent all NACEW’s stuff over to the Ministry of/for Women.
Somewhere, in transit, the report “Financial support for family carers.” (and it’s recommendation that the family carers of those with high and very high care needs be paid as other ‘formal’ carers) was lost.
Cyber oblivion.
But I had a copy on file.
Which, I sent to the nice lady at the MOW so the NACEW publications database can be made more complete.
She sent me, as I requested, (because I could not find it on the NACEW database, although there were Annual Reports from other years) the NACEW Annual Report for 2007/2008…which mentions the missing report AND shows that the lead Crown Lawyer who argued against paying family carers of those with high and very high care needs…with no small amount of vehemency… was a Ministerial Appointee on the government funded committee that recommended that these family members should be paid.
Funny how this report…which is actually quite accurately describes the situation for (mostly) women with family care obligations and discusses the issues with ‘formal’ care and is well referenced is not mentioned by either side in the ensuing court cases.
It could be an oversight. Or could it be a bit embarrassing to have the lead antagonist in the hearings associated with a document that debunks her entire case?
It must be so mentally exhausting running with the hare and hunting(aggressively) with the hounds.
-
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Hilary Stace,
I think there has been an effort to bring some good people together in the reference group and not just do the same old stuff.
We've spent a considerable part of the weekend catching up on our reading in preparation...hit a bit of a bump...
With regard to the Reference Group...a summary of the February meeting states...
The term ‘lived experience’ was considered offensive by some members of the group and it was agreed that the term ‘disabled people, their families and allies’ be used instead.
Please help, someone...our disability politically correct language and terminology knowledge clearly has gaps.
-
Speaker: SIBs: The reality of…, in reply to Marc C,
Oh, there are packers and pickers wanted to work for Progressive Enterprises, night shift, 12 hours on for four days, two days off, ahem, well, if there is nothing else, I may just have to settle for it, as an assessment has now found me “fit for work”, I hear.
You might want to pack a lunch....http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4950014/Count-down-for-a-job
or...
Take you Workwise Clinical Employment Facilitator along to help you jump the queue!
Ah!
Brave new world.
-
Speaker: SIBs: The reality of…, in reply to Marc C,
And I notice when trying Google now, the internet has been “cleansed” and “purged” from controversial info
Are we perhaps a tad paranoid Marc C? Meself was searching for a document on the Google the other night...gone it is into cyber oblivion...
I also checked out the Nation segment on the possible SIB potential for at risk yoof...and also had doubts about the veracity of the numbers.
I also took the time this morning (instead of getting properly dressed) to read John's original post here, as well as the comments so far.
And when paid work in the open employment market is supposed to be solution, the pressure will be there, as benefits will not be paid for those working over 15 or more hours, apart from perhaps the accommodation and disability allowances.
This puts people that are healthy under pressure, how is this going to work for mental health suffering people? Some may manage, and some only have temporary mental health issues, others though have repeated spells or periods of such, or permanent conditions, with resulting disabilities.
Wise's wee flowchart implies that jobs of choice are there for the willing....bullshit.
What will be there is yet another pool of exploitable workers...but these workers are at serious risk of harm when their 'job of choice' goes tits up.
Oh, the irony if the wealthy SIB investors, who just may have well contributed to the general level of mental malaise in our communities by their exploitative practices, ultimately profit.
But...let it not be said that some merely rant negatively about such innovative initiatives while not offering any constructive suggestions themselves.
There are potential employment opportunities in the entertainment industry, MSM and the blogoshere...
-
Oh, I love this...
If the image doesn't show...can someone please fix it...a picture worth a thousand words and all that...