Posts by Angela Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There are so many ramifications here. Statistics NZ is already collecting a huge amount of data on us- minus the stuff the government doesn't want to know, for its own convenience, like the disability data.
This "we don't have that information " excuse is popping up more and more often in circumstances where any reasonable Minister or CEO would have set up the information collection system ages ago, when it became apparent something wasn't working right.
And on the other side of the equation we have Big Brother, quietly going about increasing Big Brother's access to our personal lives (as was done with the IDI) for purposes of ? And that's one of the problems. The purpose might genuinely be to improve some people's life chances in the most effective and economical ways but tomorrow some less palatable use could be made of this data taonga, there's nothing to prevent it.
We do need a written constitution to prevent this constant erosion of our rights and protections. But in the meantime we need to make a lot of noise now about our citizenship rights.
-
Access: Murder – it’s not OK., in reply to Hilary Stace,
This will have to become an election issue.
It should.
Establishing the causes and the manners of enablement of historic abuses in state run institutions should allow us to avoid those causes and conditions in the present and the future. We now have state funded institutions rather than state run ones, but the state must still be held to account for them. Residential and respite care for disabled people badly needs looking at. Our most vulnerable disabled people, those who cannot readily communicate, are terribly at risk in these places. We need actions that allow us to have confidence in the support systems available, and we need support systems that meet the actual needs, including people's right to live their lives in their own ways. -
Which act- the NZ Health and Disability Amendment Act 2013? http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0022/latest/whole.html
Nah, still in force -
What might have been? But look at what is being perpetrated with our money, your taxes and mine, what an abuse!
-
Thanks Sacha, I suspected as much. Now the clinician is denying that he is effectively in isolation. There is no denying that the man is imprisoned without trial and his "treatment" has made his mental health much worse.
-
Ms Butcher said the lack of follow-up from agencies was a problem.
The petition would call for an over-arching agency to be set up "that oversees, reviews and controls all government sector services and agencies that currently fail us".
"While there is a lot of support, there's a lack of follow-up, throughout every government service,
There is theoretically a lot of support. At some times and stages the support available meets the needs. But for high and complex needs adults in the main, it just is not there. Some families seem to navigate the system exceptionally well and obtain sufficient assistance but most of us cannot.
-
Access: Help needed! Deciphering the…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
I can state categorically that for Peter the Ministry of Health was the worst thing that could have happened in terms of security of home based care.
They cocked up big time….and the bastards will never admit it.
and to state the obvious- problems don't get fixed until those with the power admit and accept that there is a problem. We can't seem to get past that first hurdle.
-
The lack of movement, the difficulty in obtaining timely, practical, knowledgeable help just doesn't seem to be addressed. Where is Ashley Peacock now?
-
another in the long, long list of situations where a government agency has failed to do its job until media picked up the story. It seems almost the norm now.
I can't help but wonder what was so wrong with the house that the several families who didn't need wheelchair facilities all rejected it. I hope whatever is wrong does not impact too badly on this family who really have no choice.
-
Access: Help needed! Deciphering the…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
What they didn’t get, and still don’t, is that the ‘alternative’ of residential care is no alternative at all since not many would choose residential care after being cared for in their own home.
It's more than that. It isn't a valid choice for some people because the residential care facilities lack the capability to meet their needs.
This is recognised by the MoH only for the sub group which poses a danger to self and others, this sub group apparently qualifying under MoH policy for individual home based care.
However the MoH remains deliberately seemingly appallingly ignorant of the fact that the remainder of the small group whose needs cannot be met with the present day residential care regime are at high risk of increased incapacity and death when forced into this situation. The message that is regularly sent by the MoH when its representatives, the NASCS, threaten residential care to these people is "you don't matter, we can do what we like to you, and frankly if you die sooner, it'll save us money, which is what really matters to us. "