I was going to go for “majority” but since that’s already been nominated how about
“plurality” seeing no one in NZ knows what it means.
Great piece Andrea, and I agree more funding isn’t THE answer. But in my experience when the money and resources shrink, sectioning to ‘ensure safety’ becomes a proxy for meaningful engagement. When clinicians have more time and autonomy to form therapeutic relationships, in other words free to do their job, people are kept safe and contained.
When they don’t or can’t do this, an adversarial system flourishes fuelled by clinician burnout and clients feeling alientated, uncared for and dehumanised.
This is where we are now, sadly.
Capri has closed. Their clinical practices, especially with addictions and prescribing, were 'questionable'. They aren't a loss IMO.
Thank you for writing this Amberleigh.
Couldn't agree more. I worked in the public system for about 12 years and the only waste I saw was the endless restructures, and name changes, forced on us by central government.
Fundamentally this government seems to consider all public servants as lazy and docile, and that crunching everyone to do more for less won't effect outcomes.
Fact is everyone I know who works in health, education and welfare is already doing a lot with next to nothing. (And in some cases nothing).
In stark opposition to the Herald today, which supports Health cuts on the efficiency argument...
And in further slashing news, health boards ordered to slash a further $138 million from budgets. How those tax cuts looking now? http://nzh.tw/11590079
No, I understand she presents the timeline in such a fashion as to minimise her involvement.
The new Sensitive Claims system, (which was an outcome of the 2009 fallout, and subsequent ministerial review, of which all professional bodies including psychotherapists helped design) is now fully funded, hence no surcharge payable by the client.
The above came from Felicity Goodyear-Smith's website.
With regards to her credibility, this also comes from her website:
"It was believed that children should be given positive messages about sex. Adult contacts were not hidden from children. Children and adolescents were not discouraged when they demonstrated an interest in sexual activities including sexual contact with adults... ...I was the doctor for the community from 1989 until 1992."
1. Sexual contact with minors was indisputably illegal at the time (regardless of what people may have "believed" was good or bad)
2. There was ample evidence at the time of the detrimental effects of sexual contact with children on their ongoing psychological development.
3. Medical professionals have a duty of care, and ethical requirement to report, suspected sexual abuse of minors.