Posts by Rosemary McDonald
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Ron Davis,
and to select a deputy from such as Jacinda, Grant, or Nash.
Might be a bit of a PR issue with Nash....http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63403143/MP-in-the-firing-line-as-parkers-see-red
He would be well advised to flick the engine....maybe when he's big enough???
Nice one.
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Hilary, Doc, you did just fine.
Like a pro....
and hot on the heels of the Robert Martin interview!
Was that serendipitous?
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Sacha,
You appear to be assuming that high need means only physical impairment, that’s all.
No, no, no, no, no!!!!
I could not have made my message anymore confusing if I'd tried.
If I have an area of particular interest it is what has become known as the Family Carers Case...more accurately "Atkinson and Others versus the Miserly of Health"
Only three of the parents were caring for their adult physically disabled children.
The rest were caring for children who had varying diagnoses that could come under the banner of " impaired thinking".
These are the individuals who would most definately be incarcerated in the institutions Hilary writes about if it were not for the committment of their family to facilitate them living something akin to a 'normal' life in the community
These are also exactly the kind of individuals who are at considerable risk in the care of contracted providers.
You will have read for yourself Sacha the multitude of reports of abuse, assaults and neglect to the point of death that these people have been subject to.
To continue the ACC/MOH disparity issue....ACC has an excellent and thorough assessment 'tool' for those with neurological/brain injuries that could easily be used to assess those under MOH care who display similar, if not identical behaviours.
ACC is legally obliged to take into consideration the risk to the health and welfare of the client if supports are not put in place to keep them safe, AND to support a certain quality of life.
Ditto for those with Spinal Cord Impairment.
A number of fine NZ based studies have been published on these disparities which examine the health, social and financial outcomes of the two groups.
I did comment somewhere, sometime ago, when those diagnosed with Autism were welcomed into the MOH:DSS family without having to have a dual diagnosis.
All was going to now be well within the ASD community since Needs Assessments would be done and Supports put in place.
Being a Cassandra, I advised a little caution.....
The NASCs have struggled for years to do proper assessments for those with care needs which are comparitively easy to ascertain....like those with spinal cord impairments who could be compared with their ACC peers.
How the hell was such a dysfunctional system as the NASC going to cope with those who's 'needs' were far less clearly defined?
"One of the things preventing significant progress in disability politics is our fragmentation, mainly caused by the siloed medicalisation of services and support organisations."
Agreed....but those with physical disabilities often have primary and/or secondary medical ssues...which if not properly addressed can significantly reduce their quality of life...if not cause their death.
The very fact that they have an obvious disability can often impede the responsivenes of medical professionals, who frequently make 'quality of life' assumptions before even examining or talking to the person.
If one's disability is not immediately visually obvious....
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Again, Hilary you hit the nail squarely on its head.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen unless the organisations representing the interests of disabled (and famiy carers) speak out loudly and clearly against government policies that perpetuate this gross disparity.
This will not happen unless this.... http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20141120-0735-community_groups_silenced_by_fear_of_funding_cuts-048.mp3
issue is addressed.
P.S. Luckily for us we delayed our usual shutting down of Natrad the other day when the usually bland afternoon programme came on....we could have missed this...http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20157548
Thank you, Hilary.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Russell Brown,
I don’t think the capital gains tax policy was well sold (Cunliffe screwed it up badly in the debates) but it addresses a real problem that continues to hurt working people, who pay their taxes while property investors (who are now responsible for a large proportion of sales in the Auckland market) enjoy their tax-free gains. It hurts young people, too.
For what it is worth...I was having a wee natter with a fellow traveller in the Far North on Election Day.
She had been a lifelong Labour Voter....literally since before birth.
Not this time.
Why? The proposed Capital Gains Tax.
It would appear that those hard working folk who trusted the financially literate with their life savings, only to lose the lot through some dodgy investment scheme have passed a lesson on to the next generation....don't trust the bastards...invest in property instead.
Those loyal Labour voters who have invested their hard earned dollars in a rental property saw the CGT as yet another threat to their retirement security.
Maybe Mr. Little actually asked a lapsed supporter just why that policy went down like a cup of cold sick?
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Sacha,
the HIGHEST care needs
As I’ve said before, I’d caution against that assumption. It certainly doesn’t help collective action.
At some point Sacha...would it be possible to discuss this?
I am not sure what the issue is with me using this term.
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
That means there is often no one in the hospital setting who knows the person’s needs. Some deaths have occured in recent years through such things as feeding issues. In busy hospital wards there is not usually the staff time to provde the extra attention.
Hah!!!
When HWMBO was in hospital having chemo....we were told in no uncertain terms that hospital staff would NOT do any of the usual (invasive, but routine (for us) cares), they would NOT do or assist with ANY transfers and they insisted on having someone familiar with his care needs available at all times.
Regardless of the fact that, in the light of previous nightmare experiences, there was no way Peter would be abandoned into their exclusive care...especially if he was too ill to speak for himself....it is quite appalling that such conditions were set.
There were some nurses who did make a real effort to get their heads around the more tricky aspects of a high spinal cord injured person's needs and were willing to help with repositioning and transfers as HWMBO became very ill. These were the nurses who took the time to read the information we had printed out for them about some of the medical issues that tetraplegics and and their carers have to be au fait with.
But they were pretty thin on the ground.
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Sacha,
It is important to review our history on a regular basis, if only to provide a baseline for comparison with the present, and make predictions about potential futures.
This is what the Ministry of Health is saying today,
''The Ministry of Health is committed to giving people with disabilities and their families more choice, control and flexibility about the disability support services they access, and to improving the access to and the quality of the support available for carers,'' Ms Atkinson said.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/320296/carers-society-lose-some-funding
Perhaps we should take a close look at Toni Atkinson's statement....a rehash of the usual claptrap one will find in all MOH:DSS documents...but particularly ironic in these post PHDAct(2) times, in these post "Putting People First" times, in these "pick a report from the Health and Disability Commission on how shittily disabled people are treated by MOH/ACC Contracted Providers" times.
If anyone associated with high needs disability thinks that conditions/supports/rights/entitlements/ expectations are better today than they were 50 years ago....they need to take another look.
There has been ONE standout cause in the past 15 years...the timeframe that Toni Atkinson references...and that was the Family Carers Case...Atkinson and Others versus the MOH.
Simply...for those with high, very high and complex care needs, for whom care is not an accessory but a necessity...that if the person is over 18 years old they have the right to choose who provides the funded care they have been assessed as needing.
Again....the case was won. Not from a ' we must be seen to be fair to the cripples and their poor, poor families ' basis...but from a Human Rights Act and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act basis.
I.e. The Tribunal, the High Court, the Appeal Court, the High Court (Spencer) all found that the HRA and NZBORA do apply to people with disabilities and their family carers.
In passing the Part 4 ammendment ot the PHDAct...the government was stating, with some emphasis I might add, that these Acts do NOT apply to disabled people...especially those not covered by ACC.
The reality is folks, there was an opportunity with the Family Carers Case for the so called Disability Community to put aside ideological differences and join forces on just this one issue...which anyone could see that the LAW was on oiur side....from a rights based perspective.
But no, we could not get our collective shit together, and we let this government trample all over us all.
Setting those with the HIGHEST care needs back into the Dark Times that Hilary writes about.
-
And just to belabour the point, lest we forget, this is what the Ministry of Health thinks of disabled persons and their families.
" and it takes time for disabled people and their families to take up new options when they come available, we see that routinely with every other new initiative we put in place."
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/242096/disabled-care-pay-policy-%27unworkable%27
That's Jill Lane, from the MOH...perpetuating the myth that we are all slow on the uptake.
If she had half a clue about the lived reality of living with a high needs disability she would know that having to adapt and change with rapidity is par for the course.
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
No, Hillary, I had not heard that there was to be a review of FFC....great...but I share Angela Hart's sceptisim....we are talking about the Misery of Health here....and if Carers NZ are representing all of us carers.....abandon ye all hope.
However....Funded Family Care got more than an passing mention in the Court of Appeal in Wellington a couple of weeks ago.
It was the MOH appeal against the Spencer decision.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/223730/high-court-backs-mother-in-ongoing-family-carer-row
Basically, Spencer challenged the ammendment toe the PHDAct...you know, the one that set up FFC and took away the right to complain about any family carer policy. Ostensibly this was done to save the nation from bankruptcy with all us greedy hitherto unpaid family carers suing the govt.
However, it turns out that there is no way near the tens of thousands of unpaid family carers "crawling out of the woodwork" to be paid, or demanding backpay.
Despite all the publicity surrounding Atkinson and Others v MOH...there is less than a handful of complaints left standing with the Human Rights Commission.
Seems like there was simply NOT tens of thousands of disabled people with high and very high needs who were entirely dependant on UNPAID family carers.
The low uptake of FFC was mentioned....less than 10% of what was budgeted for, one reason suggested that it was still discriminatory. The original MOH estimates of what it would cost to pay family carers...you all remember...the $17-593million...was mentioned as (another) example of just how wrong the MOH got the numbers.
The word 'misrepresented' was used...if I remember rightly.
.However,
Turns out one of the Crown Lawyers had described the legislation as 'wresting control back to the government', ( an "unattractive" argument, according to one of the Appeal Court judges.) "The Courts and Parliament are equal arms of the State", was one phrase that stood out.
All pretty positive sounding stuff....although, actual disability rights (or carer rights for that matter) barely got a mention.
It was a bit of a pissing contest between Crown Law and the rest.
However....it was about disability, it was about those with the HIGHEST need for hands on care and support, it was about the right to choose who provides the the care a disabled person has been assessed as needed.
The can got another kick down the street.