Access: Defective, deficient, deviant and delinquent
55 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
Emailed you.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
It could be the wording of the act possibly as the HDC Act only applies to patients, and it could be that disabled people in some circumstances, such as in community care, are not considered to be patients. But the Health and Disability Commissioner has made several recent reports on specific incidents of disabled people in residential care.
'
The Ministry of Health's recent Russell report Putting people first', should, if properly implemented should address some of the concerns mentioned by BDB. -
Sacha, in reply to
The Ministry of Health's recent Russell report Putting people first
Link?
-
The late Bev Grammer had significant input into this report, and I heard from the Ministry of Health today that they have a new advisory group to implement all the recommendations.
-
The trouble with reports like this, policies etc, is that they assume a genuineness, an honesty, a will to do the right thing, take the appropriate action and so on. The trouble is that although there are many good people working for the various ministries and agencies, they usually have their hands tied by authorities who have the bottomline uppermost. The fact is that most of us have to expend considerable energy (which we don't always have to spare) just getting basic needs addressed.
To take a quote from the Putting People First document linked above:
The impact of the Ministry’s culture on providers is to drive good practice underground, as they too seek to cover their backs
We are fighting this all the time. The people who are supposed to be providing support are actually asking themselves what is the least costly provision which will keep us out of the media because something has gone catastrophically wrong.
To go back to institutionalised care, the MOH contracts providers for respite care. You can only use the MOH providers. There is usually no other option, even if you had the dosh. The MOH has agreements with these providers to almost guarantee them sustainability, and in the process stifle any competition from potentially better quality services. While the MOH put standards etc in place, if they are found in serious breach, it takes far too long for the MOH to do anything about it. In the meantime people suffer and sometimes die because of the lack of proper care. The contracts and systems in place do not put prioritise health and safety of the people in care.The Putting People First report has the right approach, but will its eventual implementation be able to overcome the embedded viewpoints within the MOH?
I doubt it. Maybe if I live a very long time I might notice some progress. By then it won't help me or mine. -
Here's the sort of official response that's sadly all too common when someone challenges the system.
The target of Paula Bennett's dismissiveness reflects:
I should have known this would end in a personal attack by her on my state of mind and intentions.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
That's really sad. Sarah Wilson is so brave, and I'm a great fan of her writing. However, Ministerial visits can actually be quite false. Everyone rushes around to present the image required by the media and the official party. Anyone slightly critical or dangerous is kept well out of the way.
Geoffrey Palmer and other luminaries have recently commented on how risk averse the public service is, to the extent that some ministers are not getting the 'free and frank' advice that they should. But some treat politics as one big public relations exercise.
-
Angela Hart, in reply to
Here's the sort of official response that's sadly all too common when someone challenges the system.
yes, challenging it is dangerous and I know I'm vulnerable. There are too many examples from the Problem Gambling Foundation down.
-
BDB Inc, in reply to
I will try in brief
In theory disabled people are not allowed to be refused the minimum level of care/services at the public hospital, a disabled patient in critical condition ICU cannot be referred by the CCDHB to ACC "active rehab"/case management in the hospital environment, non purchase and provision of needed inpatient specialist care (orthopedic and neurological). CCDHB & ACC non provision of acute treatments needed to stabilize serious injuries, placed unstable patient against will into acc's "active rehab", abused , then left at home for months in critical condition without medical care/services. Moved and forced to weight bear on non weight bearing injuries .CCDHB misclassified as "no fall risk" with no reports of the multiple falls, choking , breathing difficulties , abuse, assault and battery or severe pain etc .
The HDC by his findings has found the reported HDC patient rights violations acceptable to him the CCDHB can refuse to purchase and provide acute care and then also mobility needs, disability care , home care, can commit crimes (if the patient is vulnerable) and thats OK with the HDC they still say there is no need to investigate the complaints in this case. Since the HDC commissioner is a lawyer I am paraphrasing his findings and his refusal to investigate claims.
The law did not stop the HDC from investigating the CCDHB assault and battery, or health providers /contractors HDC code violations .District Court provided no legal remedies, believed the criminal libel of CCDHB & ACC (has discrimination and crimes act complaints) adjourned appeals sin die .
The Ombudsman office is nesting on the ACC, CCDHB, HDC and MSD complaints on going conspiratorial criminal & discriminatory actions of the Crown & State (CCDHB, ACC & MSD).
Here I left out the parts that are a real life steven king horror story.On a positive note 2 CCDHB nurses once apologized privately :)
-
Sacha, in reply to
In theory disabled people are not allowed to be refused the minimum level of care/services at the public hospital
HDC's governing law explicitly excludes denial of service from the things they are allowed to pursue. This has been suggested by HDC and others for change every time their Act is reviewed, and has been denied by successive governments.
In short, they can act on shoddy provision of services but not on refusal to provide them. This crops up an awful lot with deliberately-rationed disability services, as you'd imagine.
-
BDB Inc, in reply to
Whoops posted same post three times( if you would like to remove two of them)
Yes the HDC could and can act on shoddy provision of services as that was part of the HDC code complaints but did they not . The complaints about the CCDHB provision of service are under the HDC code. -
BDB Inc, in reply to
The provision of service complaint were of criminal negligence and the CCDHB had the Medical protection society (MPS dr's liability insurer) managing the service provision complaints.
-
Sacha, in reply to
You are describing "non-provision" of services above. HDC can not act on those. They can act on quality of care that was actually provided.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Here's the sort of official response that's sadly all too common when someone challenges the system.
The target of Paula Bennett's dismissiveness reflects:
I should have known this would end in a personal attack by her on my state of mind and intentions.
If we don't want Paula Bennett being a law unto herself with this sort of blatant power abuse, maybe we could crowdsource a UN tribunal against her and her cohorts. Avaaz is ideal for this sort of thing.
-
Sacha, in reply to
a UN tribunal
I'm sure she's quaking in her boots.
-
BDB Inc, in reply to
I understand the HDC Code and what they can act on. I have not described the services provided its the "steven King horror movie" (services included being left unwashed & immobile in a hospital bed for two months at home)
Interesting defense of the HDC our experience of their service differs.
The Courts can act on denial of public services and I have heard from a disabled woman that had to take her denied right to public hospital service CCDHB to the court where the judge overturned the CCDHB decision. Lets agree to disagree on what can be done to disabled people and that you think these watchdog agents are performing their function. -
Sacha, in reply to
I'm not defending anyone, just pointing out the bounds set by politicians that the agency you're talking about has to fit within. It's certainly not a good thing.
-
BDB Inc, in reply to
Yes I know you are not defending the HDC in this case( as I told you it was service provision and fit within the bounds of HDC Code of patient rights).
I stress this as I feel the top down philosophies of said politicians have contaminated many crown & state agents whose whole role and function is to protect the rights of vulnerable people.The totalitarian patriarch in power (acted out by Paula Bennett) will aggressively attack and lie without blinking. It looks like it becomes second nature ( her conditioning) to act in an unreceptive and hostile way.
-
Deficient and delinquent politicians, we has them.
-
Margaret Moana McGregor, in reply to
Deficient and delinquent politicians, we has them.
we most certainly do, and inexorably we return to politics. BDB Inc, like many others, has had a torturous experience at the hands of the medical establishment, and his/her complaint has not been heard and addressed. It isn't much to ask.
If in fact the HDC is powerless to act, there should be an alternative. Unfortunately the standard alternatives are direct complaints to the DHB concerned or the MOH, and also unlikely to be heard or acted on.
-
Margaret Moana McGregor, in reply to
The totalitarian patriarch in power (acted out by Paula Bennett) will aggressively attack and lie without blinking. It looks like it becomes second nature ( her conditioning) to act in an unreceptive and hostile way.
Yes, and she's only one prominent example. You'll get "Black is white" statements from MOH, DHB and NASC personnel whose power to make decisions over your life is virtually unassailable.
You survived; BDB Inc, like me I suspect you are stronger in many ways than before.
-
BDB Inc, in reply to
Thank you Margaret .
The HDC could've acted as it was about CCDHB provision of services( all HDC patient code of rights ) . Its submitted in the district court under human rights violations, crimes act, ( IPRC act ACC) and UN convention its with the govt, minstry of justice & Ombudsman."Bennett & Collins are clueless robotic tools of tyrany whose bodies are not male."
Imagine the DPA & NZ disability sector having real (and qualified) heads . Imagine the difference compassion and kindness would made up there, thats one thing I want " That people who care are there". Right now its the people who care are not there and are silenced by slander and libel, so its change we need. This kind of thinking feeling change benefits all people not just disabled people, like current heads have a trickle down of icky stuff but with good hearts and minds the trickle would be sweet.
-
"Robotic tools of tyranny"
-
I think some of these comments are unfair. There are some very good people in DPA, DPOs and the disability sector generally. They do their best with limited people and financial resources. These organisations are their members.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the disability sector generally
I've tried to shed some basic light on what we mean when we say that.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.