Recently I wrote about John Burns, whose battle to secure
continuing healthcare in his own home gave me cause for considerable concern.
For those who may not have seen my previous piece, Mr Burns suffered a tragic
water sports accident which left him paralysed and without sensation from the
neck down. But at the very time when he most needed the support and
infrastructure of family life, he was forced, through lack of any alternative,
to live in institutional care. Understandably, Mr Burns regarded this as akin
to prison. He missed anniversary celebrations and seeing his sons grow up, and
all the up and downs that make a family so special.
I was fortunate to hear Mr Burns speak at the AGM of the
All Party Parliamentary Group on Spinal Cord Injury, held at Portcullis House.
He brought his audience to the brink of tears as he so spoke so courageously. I
left feeling profoundly moved, and determined to try to raise the profile of
people in Mr Burns’ position.
With this in mind I applaud the publication of a white
paper on the future of social care, published last week along with a draft
social care Bill. As a press release from the Law Society has it, this amounts
to “a rare opportunity to unify and modernise existing legislation which must
not be wasted.” Law Society President Lucy Scott-Moncrieff states: “Simplifying and unifying a mass of
existing statute is an arduous and complex exercise. The aim must be to
improve the experience of those requiring care.”
The publication of the white paper comes against a
backdrop of reduced spending on social care, a society whose citizens are
living longer and a need for clarity on how the system will be funded in
future. But does it do enough to help seriously injured people?
I will be taking a look at both the white paper and the
draft Bill in detail to find out, but one thing strikes me as dubious at the
outset. It is envisaged that elderly people in need of care will be able to
take out loans on the value of their homes, repayment of which will be deferred
until their death. Therefore people will not be forced to sell their homes to
obtain care, but is it right that the family inheritance is potentially
eradicated in this fashion?
I don’t think it is. I believe that as a society we are
guilty of failing to respect those in need of care properly, whether they are
the elderly or those unfortunate enough to suffer a serious and debilitating
injury. At present, costs are pushed back and forth between local authorities
and the NHS – a problem the white paper seeks to deal with by proposing greater
integration – but as a starting point surely we should be accepting that
society has a duty to meet the costs of care? After all, those who need care
have paid their taxes and, in all but a tiny minority of cases, they have contributed
to the wellbeing of their communities and the economy of the nation. Why does
government, past and present, assume the default position that it is the
individual’s responsibility to pay for care?
I will return to this topic in the future but, for now, I
am not convinced that those suffering catestrophic injury would be impressed or relieved by the content
of this white paper. Let’s make sure it
doesn’t end up being a missed opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment