|
||||||||
'Care capping' and other care changes 'steam rollered'
by Liberal Democrat Richmond Council 26th March 2001. Just like they allways do.The Real Facts of Real Peoples Life's.
We would request the Lib-Dem Council and Social Services to consider these true and factual cross samples of some disabled users of social care in the Liberal Democrat Borough. We would also request a feasible and practical resolution to the cases below. One that keeps in mind the sensitivity, difficulties, needs and care deserved towards those with disabilities. In addition, one that takes into account Human, Disability and Care Rights.
Case One.
Middle aged gentleman. Cognitive impairment, memory difficulties,
needs constant stimulation, prone to wander and get lost. Not able to shop, cook
or resolve other basic necessities. Unable to live independently in the community
without present level of care. 'Pop in' care would be fraught with difficulties
for this user. Needs considerable social care.
Presently receives 52 Hrs week.
Care capping options? Immediately condemned to residential
care.
Contra central government objectives. Human Rights Act. Disability Discrimination
Act
Case Two.
Mid 20's lady. Spinal Bifida, wheelchair user. Some of
this lady's care needs are very personal and not suitable for 'pop in' workers.
Presently receives 42Hrs week
Care capping options? Reduction of independence.
Basic care needs unresolved. Living standards drastically reduced. Degraded.
Contra central government objectives. Human Rights Act. Disability Discrimination
Act
Case Three.
Mid 20's man. Tetraplegic. Coming out of residential care
into independent community living. Needs considerable social care.
24Hr care required.
Care capping options? Back to residential
care for this young man, who is only asking for his basic legal and human rights
of equality. With any care capping, people like this young man would be institutionalised
in the Richmond borough..
Very Contra central government objectives. Human
Rights Act. Disability Discrimination Act
Case Four.
Mid 50's gentleman. Tetraplegic. Not illegible for ILF.
Already pays the maximum contribution of £160 week for care.
Care capping options? What are they? Needs clarity of definitions and answer. As proposed, this person will loose half his care requirements.
Case
Five.
Mid 40's lady. Visual impairment. Lives on own with guide
dog. No other form of financial or care support.
Presently receives 19Hrs week
Under presently proposed eligibility criteria, care
would be considerably reduced, to a level well below set standards of independent
living. What little relief, enjoyment and freedom this lady has, will be taken
away. She will be left feeling very worthless in her disability. Grave depressive
or suicidal complexes commonly result from this situation.
Contra central
government objectives. Human Rights Act. Disability Discrimination Act
Case
Six.
Lady early 60's, just out of long term care into community.
Severe dexterity and arthritic condition, wheelchair user. Needs considerable
social care.
Presently receives (to be evaluated)
Care
capping options? Only one, back to care. Denied independent living. Denied rights.
Denied opportunity of equality. In fact, denied everything. Care capping would
clearly be a 'shove her back into care' attitude. Contravenes social care obligation
to inhuman extent.
Very Contra central government objectives. Human Rights
Act. Disability Discrimination Act
Case Seven.
Single mother, mid 30's, arthritic, two young children
- one with learning difficulties. Has live in care for herself and additional
care for child with disability.
Presently receives (to be evaluated)
Care
capping will not only remove this mothers rights as a disabled parent, it will
remove her ability to function as a parent and family. In light of this abhorrent
possibility, the other losses in basic rights to living conditions, independence,
security etc., seem to pale.
Very Contra central government objectives. Human
Rights Act. Disability Discrimination Act
Case Eight.
50's male. Dementia. Constant care required. Fits into
'high needs' criteria
Presently receives 57Hrs
Care capping options? Without at least the care hours received in the manner presently received, another one delegated to institutional care. The law gives no person - or council, the right to commit an act of such human degradation.
Implications.
In the above cases, maximum external care input is being
utilised. I.e., Family, friends, ILF, DLA, adaptations, wheelchairs, etc. Therefore,
reduction of care hours supplied by Lib-Dem social services will immediately place
them at the minimum - disadvantaged. Though, even worse, at risk or condemned
to residential care.
The proposal to replace some hours with five minute 'drop ins', may well satisfy some elderly care needs from the aspect of personal safety. However, introduction to under 65's as a method of alternative care would make it impossible to maintain individual lifestyle or independence. Government introduced direct payments expressly to preserve this independence
There is also a need for reassessment of the proposed 'High, Medium & Low' care criteria eligibility in much greater detail and clarity.
The additional question arises, of including the DLA care component towards the cost of social care. This is already hot debate with many organisations, as DLA is specifically for extra needs in association with the persons disability. It is not defined by, or has ever been intended towards any element of personal care costs. These being the responsibility of local councils under the social care charter. Opposition to any councils implementing this strategy and, prosecution failing dialogue, is the remit of several established organisations.
May we remind the reader, that by law, every council has a legal duty to fore fill their social care obligations. Though with a few councils, this is to the bear minimum, the majority of more responsible councils, far exceed their minimum care obligations. However, these proposed changes to Liberal Democrat Richmond councils care policy, plunges disabled care users well below minimum care levels, into the realm of direct contravention of Human and Disability rights.
The law is very specific and clear on subjecting those with disabilities to a substandard life, denial of equality or, any actions by any person, that reduces or demeanours their right to independent living. It is also very strict in dealing with offenders.
Another question in need of answering, in consideration of the Lib-Dem councils inability to meet it's current care duties, there will obviously be financial delay expanding direct payments as required by government. Indeed all users feel very insecure, as an appropriate policy for secure continuance is absent.
Conclusion.
The proposed change to the boroughs social care has been hurriedly thrown together
in an emergency financial rush. It lacks consultation, external specialist advice
and has no consideration - other than financial towards those most at risk in
the borough. There are no transparently structured policies for short or long
term care of the disabled, at least not in keeping with law.
By
the Liberal Democrats own admission, it is financially incapable of fore filing
obligations as laid down by government in relation to social care within legal
guidelines. Leaving serious questions of its expertise or financial stability
to run social services in the borough. In such cases of no confidence, the council
or an independent may request central governments intervention to administer social
care in the borough, to divert social injustice.
**The
Liberal Democrat scandal **
Task
ForceHome Page
All content is without
prejudice. Disability UK is Europe's TOP disability site. We have no affiliation
with any other group.
These web site links are listed as a convenience to our visitors. If you use these links, we take no responsibility and give no guarantees, warranties or representations, implied or otherwise, for the content or accuracy of these third-party sites.
Home:
Sitemap:
© Disability UK - Richmond - UK
