Chuckling going on in the whare...
A couple of years ago we made a complaint via an advocate about the "services" rendered by our local NASC.
After some exchanges (surprising what they're willing to put in an email ;-) ) we had a meeting up at the Hospital twixt us and our advocate the NASC manager, the DHB manager and a leading rehab clinician. We recorded this meeting.
With the most adroit slight of hand they managed to completely dismiss our complaints and imply that Peter was reluctant to participate in a needs assessment.
More chuckling in the whare.
Peter has had more assessments than most in the 48 years since breaking his miserable neck, and has cooperated fully with all of them.
He did however remind the DHB manager of the time that the assessor's area of expertise was intellectual disability and they had no knowledge of spinal impairment, much less tetraplegia.
He told the DHB manager that he would be administering a wee test of his own to the next assessor and if they failed to display an acceptable knowledge of tetraplegia he would consider them unfit for purpose and ask that another, appropriately experienced person was sent.
"But that would be declining service!" DHB manager sputtered....
You might have the money for high quality chocolate but there are no specialty chocolate shops in the region where you live.
Marks suggests an early warning score system as a measure to prevent further deaths...
Another preventative solution could be an early warning score system, that collated information from hospitals, GPs, disability support services, school attendance records, and Oranga Tamariki records.
The system would record any increase in GP visits or phone calls, a change of primary care provider, an increase in emergency department visits, reduced use of funded supports, a decrease in attendance at school or adult day school, or escalating behaviour in the individual or their caregiver.
...which is an excellent idea providing "reduced use of supports" is carefully examined. To be seen as a risk factor of harm when the available funded supports are not fit for purpose would be totally wrong.
Already 'declined service' (because of unsuitability or inappropriateness) appears on MOH;DSS paperwork to promote the false narrative that they did try really really hard to satisfy the eligible person's requests....but the person or their whanau were just too damn picky.
Increase in GP or Emergency Department visits also is not necessarily an indication that the person is at risk of harm from the family carer...it could mean that the GP and/or the hospital had failed to diagnose and treat promptly. As what happened with Ruby.
Those bastards at the Misery will never admit their failures.
Your original post pretty much says it all and I'm fairly sure those who commented are still of the same mind.
So, I'll just do an update and link to these....
But I will quote Dr Rosemary Marks...
"I remind you that governments allocate resources not only according to needs, but also with an eye on what the public wants.
"If people and lobbyists loudly demand more roads – that is what they will get.
"Until as a society we learn to value all our citizens including those with disability, our leaders will not consider they have a mandate to prioritise spending taxpayers' money on improving services for people with disability over the many other demands facing them.
"We need to learn to include all members of the community. An inclusive society is a just society. We need to learn not just to tolerate difference but to celebrate difference."
PS...has Marks' report been released to the public?
The articles and the comments that follow articles about such subjects have had me so down about the state of things for people with disabilities, including myself, that I haven’t been able to write this until now, many weeks after I was approached to write something. It’s really got to me and not for the first time.
If I were to say out loud "I think Michael L and David G should be crammed together in a barrel and rolled into an active volcano." one or both of them would take umbrage and very possibly try and bring the Law down upon my head. So I won't say it out loud...even if they both feel they have the right to advocate for the elimination of those they consider 'special'. Both these worthies have even begun their diatribes with words to the effect '...in a civilized/sophisticated/first world society...' as if somehow New Zealand is backwards because we do at least offer some support to those living with disability.
I have absolutely no idea what sort of figure we are talking and no real interest in knowing how much I cost the taxpayers of Aotearoa/New Zealand.
I was their baby and they made the best decisions for me with the information they had at the time. Every decision they have made for me throughout my lifetime since then was with my quality of life in mind. This country could learn a lot from my parents’ example.
Chelle...this is real work you are undertaking, all the best, and send me a copy of your thesis when it's published.
I have a bit of a thing for such research...so I'll look forward to yours with anticipation. All the best.
Never been an incident when he is out of that place
Hmmm....so, the health professionals responsible for his day to day care may not, after all,be the best people to advise on his future care?
I had an idea that might be the case.
The Herald editorial follows up today and also quotes the Ombudsman.
...the process had been "excruciatingly slow" and in his view unacceptable. He also stated that he was speaking not as an advocate for Ashley but as the head of an independent monitoring body charged with ensuring the conditions of detention and the treatment of detainees was humane, and met international human rights standards.
IHC advocate Trish Grant says Ashley's treatment reflects the lack of value placed on the lives of the disabled. That view is understandable. Ashley's family is clearly desperate to have more access to him, and firmly believe his welfare will improve away from his bleak surroundings.
Boshier accepts that places of detention contain people with very complex and competing needs. But he argues that a civilised society should treat all members, including its most vulnerable, humanely and with dignity. That appears to have been lacking in the case of Ashley Peacock.
I am having one or two issues device wise at the moment. I am having to wean myself from an old laptop running on Windows Vista and Works to a newer (only four years old) laptop running on Windows 7. This was a gamer's machine, and he had no use for word processing. Me being too poor to purchase Works...have installed Libre Office. There have been problems. Mostly formatting type stuff. I am wrenched from my comfort zone.
Your working link is much appreciated.
And hopefully the health professionals heard the Ombudsman...
( Sincerely hoping that linked works.)
I think the complexity and risks are much greater than you think – something Genter has apparently now come to appreciate.
Tell you what Neil...shine a bit of light here...what the hell do you mean...'the complexity and risks....?
Because after over a decade of being locked up like a feral, only the truly moronic would deny this will not be an easy or risk free transition for Ashley.
He is going to need rehabilitating...in the true sense of the word.
And if it costs more to try and ensure his safety, so be it.
They should have thought about the accumulative damage done to this man while they all sat around the wash basin.
Or were they hoping for another outcome...
And here's Kirsty again, one year on and still fucking battling.
Truly, people, I'm over it and I'm singularly unimpressed with Genter's response.
The stumbling block appears to be funding... or it could simply be that the Ministry are being twats because they are being guilt tripped into sorting this.
Whatever...Genter needs to make some calls and get to the bottom of it.
Oh and Julie Anne....I'll say it again...don't rely on getting the truth or an accurate picture from Ministry of Health bureaucrats.
Oh, and thank you again Kirsty.