Caring for hospital patients - Letters | The Irish Times - Tue, Apr 30, 2013

Caring for hospital patients - Letters | The Irish Times - Tue, Apr 30, 2013

our health service is crumbling. our vulnerable citizens are taking the brunt of it.  this is eugenics in all but name

Atos pays out to man left in pain and distress by assessment

Atos pays out to man left in pain and distress by assessment

UK again...the place where they'll spend 10 million pounds for Maggie Thatchers funeral and dump disabled people in the sewer!

BBC - The Ouch! Blog: Katherine Kowalski: Life with Lawrence, whose syndrome has no name

BBC - The Ouch! Blog: Katherine Kowalski: Life with Lawrence, whose syndrome has no name

myself and twin are SWANS as well!

Government minister Esther McVey’s untrue claims about Disability Living Allowance | Ekklesia

Government minister Esther McVey’s untrue claims about Disability Living Allowance | Ekklesia

when government ministers lie they ought to be ousted!

How welfare assessors told disabled woman to get ready for work - video | Society | guardian.co.uk

How welfare assessors told disabled woman to get ready for work - video | Society | guardian.co.uk

You gotta warch this! I've never seen such blatant stupidity in my entire life!

Disability benefits pose a trap for the under-25s in Ireland - West

Disability benefits pose a trap for the under-25s in Ireland - West

Another Irish Gov attempt to cut benefits to disabled people

Hospital 'didn't plan' diabetic mum's care - Independent.ie

Hospital 'didn't plan' diabetic mum's care - Independent.ie

another pregant woman loses her life unnecessarily. This didn't hit many headlines.

Has the government broken the law over disability benefit changes? | Sean Rivers | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Has the government broken the law over disability benefit changes? | Sean Rivers | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

crazy that if you were eligible for a benefit not able to walk over  50 metres you are not now because it's been reduced to 20 metres!

So last year you were disabled, this year you are not!

Diagram of Tax Avoidance vs Benefit Fraud

Diagram of Tax Avoidance vs Benefit Fraud

The UK conservative gov and many right wing papers argue that there are THOUSANDS of welfare benefit scroungers.  Here's the truth!

Hundreds of patients at risk in crammed wards, nurses warn - Independent.ie

Hundreds of patients at risk in crammed wards, nurses warn - Independent.ie

to all travellers to Ireland...take out private insurance!

Creches forced to turn away children with special needs - Social Affairs & News from Ireland & Abroad | The Irish Times - Mon, Apr 08, 2013

Creches forced to turn away children with special needs - Social Affairs & News from Ireland & Abroad | The Irish Times - Mon, Apr 08, 2013

excuses, excuses. excuses.... an inclusive Ireland must start at the beginning.  Creches are dealing with little children who need to PLAY! 

Disabled children need to PLAY!   is that so difficult to provide?

George Osborne ducks TV debate with disabled campaigner Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson - Mirror Online

George Osborne ducks TV debate with disabled campaigner Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson - Mirror Online

Love it! Cancelled due to 'chemistry between the guests'  HA!  That made me laugh.  You mean sparks would fly and Osborne afraid of his life - coward!

Really pisses me off to see UTV pandering to this childish behaviour!

New welfare row as 600,000 are set to come off disability benefit - Telegraph

New welfare row as 600,000 are set to come off disability benefit - Telegraph

The attack on disabled people is reaching Hadamar proportions!   we need to stamp out current 'fascist' thinking against Disabled people.  This is a hate crime disquised as politics and economic reform

Poll: Would you use a disabled parking space without a valid sticker?#comment-1088567

Poll: Would you use a disabled parking space without a valid sticker?#comment-1088567

Very alarming that so many in this poll would use a disabled person's parking bay.  We have a long way to go!

Review of Transport Support - Ireland- My views & Concerns

‘Review of Transport Supports’ - Ireland

Dr Margaret Kennedy looks at the issues and expresses her concerns.
Magsken57@gmail.com tel: 0868786937

Date: 4.4.2013

　

　

This consultation, in my view, is an attempt by the Irish Government to deny disabled and elderly people their rights to mobility & accessibly which includes a right to ‘freedom of movement’, ‘freedom of association’, and the fundamental right of ‘freedom of self-determination’.

On April 2^nd 2013 The Irish Government announced a


Review of transport solutions for people with disabilities
The Department of Health is holding a public consultation to guide consideration of a replacement solution or solutions for the transport and mobility needs which have been met by the Mobility Allowance and Motorised Transport Grant schemes. These two schemes have recently been closed by the Government, because the Ombudsman has found that they were not consistent with the Equal Status Acts.
Any new solution will use the funds currently spent on these two schemes to meet priority transport needs for people with disabilities, whatever their age.
The purpose of the consultation is to hear the views of the widest possible number of people who have an interest in this and in particular the people who are currently in receipt of either the Mobility Allowance or the Motorised Transport Grant.
All submissions must be made no later than 17:00 hours on Wednesday 17th April 2013.
An on-line version of the form for submission will be available on this page in the coming days. However, as an alternative, submissions can be made:
By e-mail by filling in the Word Version of this form and sending it to:


Transport_Review@health.gov.ie
By post by completing the PDF Version of this form and sending it to:
Mobility Allowance/Motorised Transport Grant Review
Disability Unit
Department of Health
Hawkins House
Hawkins Street
Dublin 2

Here are my concerns.

This public consultation is the Irish Governments attempt to squeeze a reliable mobility/transport scheme into narrow parameters as a cost-cutting ‘austerity’ cut back. Though ’ring-fencing’ the 10million euro the scheme presently costs the governments said a scheme that fit’s the legal requirements would cost 300million. Thus the government is still not willing to give the rights of disabled and elderly people to a means of mobility and transport as required in law.

The scrapping of the scheme came (allegedly) after advice from:


Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly castigated the department for imposing restrictions to mobility and transport allowances, which she said were illegal.
She found the upper age limit of 66 years for the mobility allowance was discriminatory and in breach of the Equal Status Acts.
She also found that no account was taken of the mobility of those with psychological or intellectual disabilities.

On scrapping the schemes the government spokesperson said:


The Government is conscious of the position of the Ombudsman that the schemes are illegal in the context of the Equal Status Acts.
The Government has today decided that it is no longer possible to allow the two schemes to continue as they presently operate and to devise an alternative scheme for meeting people's needs.
The decision has been taken after the commencement of a consultation review process with representatives of those people affected."
He added: "The decision is in no way intended to save costs, and the funding involved in the two schemes – worth €10.6m – remains committed to meeting the transport needs of relevant people."
　
But Mr Dolan of the Disability Federation said:


The department is taking the view that it was forced to take this action.
The department is not the victim here, the 4700 people with disabilities and their families are the victims of what can accurately be described as an unprecedented and unannounced withdrawal of vital funding."
　
Enda Kenny announced:

These two schemes — the motorised transport grant and the mobility allowance — are illegal, are not in conformity with the Disability Act, are not in conformity with the Equal Status Act, and are not in conformity with our Constitution. We cannot stand over a scheme that is obsolete, that is unfair, that is discriminatory, that is not in compliance with these acts and therefore we have got to deal with it.
　
The Department of Health accepted the scheme breached equality laws but said it could not afford the €300 million to widen eligibility.
　
We should be under no illusion; this ‘consultation process’ is but an attempt to hoodwink the public and disabled and elderly people into believing that the government is being openly transparent and democratic through this consultation process.

The government has already stated that they could not come up with an alternative scheme after Emily O’Rielly’s comments that the present scheme - to be scrapped- was illegal. They have told us they looked closely at all possibilities and could not devise any alternatives. Probably because they were intent on cost cutting rather than providing an equitable scheme . It beggers belief that this new process will achieve anything of an equitable nature.

The actual questionnaire, for those who wish to submit their views and suggestions, is a true testament to the gross lack of understanding of the issues of mobility, transport and accessibility for all groups needing this support:


Disabled people
Elderly people and those over 66
Those with psychological difficulties
Those with intellectual difficulties

Furthermore, that the government has given two weeks for submission to the panel set up to address these issues speaks volumes that they do not fully understand that many disabled people will need help to give their views and opinions. Getting that help will take time. Many disabled people due to being unable to understand the questions or not able to use computers or hold a pen, or unaware of the technical or legal aspects will find it difficult to submit their views.

A critique of the consultation questionnaire.

It has to noted that no-where in this questionnaire are the needs of the elderly (over 66) and those with psychological difficulties or intellectual difficulties, those groups Emily O’Reilly said had been unlawfully excluded from the present scheme to be scrapped, is mentioned or addressed.

Question 1: Who is making the submission?

It would seem to me that the detailed information required of those making submission is intrusive and unnecessary. Is the person who is age 66+ to be disregarded whilst a person 18-24 to be more regarded?

Does it matter whether a submission is from one in employment or one in ‘home duties’/retired?

Does it matter whether your views and suggestions are from a person in receipt already of a mobility grant or one who has a free travel pass?

I fail to understand the rationale for such an in depth personal details enquiry by the review panel .

Furthermore the purpose for the request for the name and address and contact details (though these are optional) of the submitting person is again not explained.

Will your details go on some database? Will your views compromise any future application for support?

Question 2: For those in receipt of the present benefits: These questions seem reasonable and valuable, though I have concerns about the first part:

If you have been in receipt of the mobility allowance or motorised transport grant : please describe what you have used the mobility or motorised transport grant for?

This is problematic because many people use their grants to improve their lives in relation to ‘companionship with others’, (association), to allay loneliness, to save for a special outing, and in the views of those unable to understand the limitations of people with disabilities or elderly people their use of these grants may seem contrary to the purist notion that such grants should only be used to get from point A to point B. If they have therefore given their names and addresses will future benefits be compromised if such imagination in use of grants is deemed too ‘imaginative’!

Question 3: Who should be eligible for support?

This, in my view is the most concerning question in the consultation process.

In view of the fact this consultation process ‘is to hear the views of the widest possible number of people who have an interest in this’ which could include those members of the public who view all disabled people as ‘scroungers’ and ‘deceitful’ or ‘liars’ as well as those who have no idea of either disability, impairment, mobility, access, or elderly people.

This question asks ‘the widest possible number of people’ to decide who should get benefits. Is the blind person more deserving than the wheelchair user? Is the wheelchair user more deserving than the person who cannot drive? This question pits one disabled group against another. It fosters a hierarchy of ‘seriousness’ or ‘worthiness’. It fosters discrimination on the grounds of judgements about people’s lives which are complex and difficult .

The ‘scoring’ of people in rank of ‘importance’ from 1-8 is objectionable and obscene.

The needs of the elderly (over 66) and those with psychological difficulties or intellectual difficulties, those groups Emiliy O’Reilly said had been unlawfully excluded from the present scheme to be scrapped, are not included in the list of persons to be ranked ‘in order of importance’.

It shows how simplistic and unprofessional this governments understanding of disabled people’s needs are.

　

Question 4 Limited access to Transport .

　

This question asks people to rank in order of importance 1-7 the factors that should be taken into consideration in deciding eligibility.

This is utterly nonsensical. The separate ‘criteria’ to be ranked are not mutually exclusive. The separate criteria makes a mockery of understanding ‘transport’ as a fundamental right of disabled, sick or elderly people.

For some purposes e.g. getting to a hospital appointment criteria ‘a’ might be the case, but another purpose getting to the shops criteria ‘b’ might be the case. In a further scenario criteria ‘c’ might be the case.

Why should ‘not having a car’ for example be a criteria? Those disabled people who drive may on some days be too ill to drive. They may be too tired to go on a long journey and drive themselves. They may have a car but do not drive it themselves but it is only used during the allocated hours of a personal assistant.

The ranking of diverse criteria is a complete nonsense.

　

Question 5: How should people be assessed?

I am concerned that
the ‘widest possible number of people who have an interest in this’ who are asked to contribute to this consultation may be the general public not versed in any disability awareness/equality or understanding.

The ranking system this time (1-3) ranks professionals as the ‘most important’ person to do assessments! The medical practitioner is this time pitted against the OT. No other profession is acknowledged /mentioned therefore not obviously seen as relevant. The nurse, the social worker, the person’s carer, the person themselves do not seem to be regarded as relevant people in any assessment process.

This leaves the disabled person at the mercy of individuals who may not have the skills or expertise to ascertain why the person has mobility/access needs. They may not judge that a depressed person, for example, needs a mobility allowance to encourage participation in life as they focus on physical ability only.

This question is utterly inadequate. The assessment process is of crucial importance but disabled people themselves or those who need these benefits should have a full and proper part in this process.

This is not acknowledged.

　

6: How often should qualification be reviewed?

This is a reasonable question if some people are going to be regarded as ‘temporarily’ eligible. However most people who fit eligibility criteria will need such benefits life-long. Unnecessary anxiety of constant assessment or review should not be foisted on already complex lives.

　

7: Purpose of transport Support

Another ‘ranking of importance’ (1-6) exercise. Again suggesting some people are more important than others. There is a serious danger that those who need these benefits for ‘getting out and about and socialising or visit family/friends will be ranked lower than going to hospital appointments or work.

This is prejudicial against those who do not work, the elderly, mentally ill or intellectually impaired.

Again a completely simplistic analysis of ‘living life with an illness, impairment or disability’.

　

8. What is the best way to provide supports to individuals who qualify?

I am concerned that disabled people will find this question with the many varied options unanswerable in the light of the short time-frames for responding.

Disabled people should have had adequate and full time to explore all these possibilities. This has not, as far as I understand it been afforded.

There are financial, legal, human-rights aspects not addressed here.

　

　

　

　

Conclusion.

I find this ‘consultation’ process discriminatory, inaccessible to many and simplistic of the complex needs of disabled, ill and elderly people.

Many disabled, ill or elderly person will not be able to contribute to this consultation process due to time and lack of discussion around these issues as well as issues of access and communication given the person’s impairment.

The message of ‘professionals will decide eligibility’ gives the recipient or potential recipient no ‘self-determination’ in this process.

Human rights are not anywhere acknowledged and the ‘ranking’ of people with different conditions against each other is objectionable and divisive.

The ranking in ‘order of importance’ will lead to discrimination on the basis of whether one works or does not.

The whole document exudes the slant that this process is taking and it only speaks of ‘cuts’ and more cuts.

It does not seek to make the lives of recipients or potential recipients more fulfilled, less lonely and more achievable.

It simply seeks to find the lowest common denominator and thus aims to exclude those ranked ‘not so important’ and those with alleged concerns ‘not so important’.

The title ‘Review of Transport support’ minimizes the issues. ‘Transport’ is essential in all walks of life and it is through transport that equality, human rights and access to services, community and health is fully achieved.

The simplistic analysis that ‘Transport’ is only about getting from A to B in some deemed ‘important’ occasions or circumstances rules out any idea that transport is a fundamental human right.

I believe this consultation process is not an exercise in democracy but is, in fact an exercise in de-humanising of people with complex needs and vulnerabilities.

I also believe it is an exercise in achieving ’austerity cuts’ and ’locking out’ of a swathe of eligible recipients from any new scheme of alleged ’transport support’.



Dr Margaret Kennedy (PhD)

Independent Consultant on Disability

Disabled person

And campaigner on Disability rights and equality







　

　

　

　



　

　

　

　

　

View from a hospital trolley - Letters | The Irish Times - Tue, Apr 02, 2013

View from a hospital trolley - Letters | The Irish Times - Tue, Apr 02, 2013

This makes me so mad!   Those who can't afford insurance won't get a bed! Two tier health is NOT democratic or indeed civilised.  It is an abmination. and lovely Ireland is a dire place for the poor.