My reading of the situation is that they tend to be unsatisfactory, for most people. I decided not to have one, because I have no confidence in the system. I think, for example, that there should be a simultaneous assessment of the needs of both carers and their carees. This ought to include a medical assessment of the fitness of the carer to meet the demands of the caring situation and to provide care of a sufficient quality to meet the needs of their caree.
I am aware that some carers are so devoted that they want to care, regardless of their own health. Admirable, but not necessarily wise. Of course, it is all too easy to point to the reality of the alternative to family care at home. The privatisation and lack of adequate regulation of nursing homes is a national disgrace. I would rather go directly to the graveyard myself.
The key question is, where are the resources for good quality caring ? There is a limited to the size of the public purse you know. How often have you heard that ? It was always hypocrisy and now it is manifestly so. A country which can afford vast sums of public money to bail out greedy irresponsible banks and speculating city spivs can surely afford to care for its most vulnerable citizens. Look at the national budget, if there still is such a thing. Look at where the money goes, on immoral wars, Trident and aircraft carriers. Where are our priorities, both here and throughout the world ? Surely another, better, world is possible.
5 comments:
Absolutely agree with everything you say, Dugsie. And, yes, a better world is possible but there has to be the public and political will and the will at the moment is to push more of the financial burden onto the family in addition to the already overwhelming burden on the individual in need of care.
So what does the future hold for you and I? I think we will see things get worse but for future generations I do have hope of a fairer world for carers, one where their contribution to society is fully acknowledged both in terms of financial recompense and status.
Society seems to move in cyclical phases, we are moving back into the social thinking of the late 19th, early 20th centuries but I have every hope of a more enlightened period when the value of a Welfare State is yet again accepted and many of the social ills of today which result from the rolling back of state provision and the return to the concepts of the deserving and undeserving poor will yet again be put behind us and society will accept its collective responsibility for those who cannot compete for wealth or services.
So a better world is possible but it requires a shift in thinking that the public and politicians are not ready for and won't be ready for for some time to come, we have to complete this cycle before we embark on another one.
Why is it that some fellow carers agree with me and others never do.
Is it a matter of attitude, politics or situation. I'm inclined to think that it's a matter of situation.
I'm not sure whether I'm an endorser or a dissenter, tell me and I'll try to answer your question, Dugsie.
Don't we usually find ourselves on the same side of the argument ?
I have thought of you as an ally. That is why I miss your presence on Carer Watch.
We do indeed,Dugsie, but not all carers share our view, some enjoy the ranting victim persona.
Some noncarers support our view but the "idle scroungers" brigade are the same as any ignorant group: they shout loudly and emptily but reasonable people talk quietly and reasonably and are not always heard above the rabble. Ultimately though they will be heard along with us; when the rabble, carer and noncarer alike, lose their voices through shouting too loudly reason will prevail.
Annie
Post a Comment