[BBC News] Cash lump sum for bereaved carers

[Albert Tatlock]

Who said 'it is a mark of a civilised people how they treat the more vulnerable amongst them'? May be a misquote, but it sums it up nicely.

I believe the original quote was from Hubert H Humphrey who said: "The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

 

Hubert Horatio Humphrey, Jr. was the thirty-eighth Vice President of the United States, serving under President Lyndon B. Johnson.

[bluemonday]

Given that the cared for meets the criteria and requires to be cared for, as regards the carers allowance; a sum of 35 times the minimum hourly wage might be a better option per week.

This would of course cost more being the difference between the present £1.42 and the minimum hourly rate times 35.

And would remove carers from poverty.

 

Naturally it would cost more but it would still work out far less than a care home place.

 

Regarding previous posts on Children with special needs, it is clear that in this, as in so many other areas eg Disability legislation that the IOM lags far behind.

"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

In this, I'd suggest that the Manx government has failed. It is years behind.

 

Of course throwing money at projects of doubtful benefit is de rigeur.

 

Perhaps MHKs or the pen pushers at the DSS who dismiss a claim for an Autistic or disabled child or indeed an adult unable to care for themselves might like to come and do the job themselves?

Nothing like reality to open the eyes is there?

 

But you won't will you because you don't have the guts to do it. You're doing nicely so fuck those who aren't!

[Albert Tatlock]

Perhaps MHKs or the pen pushers at the DSS who dismiss a claim for an Autistic or disabled child or indeed an adult unable to care for themselves might like to come and do the job themselves?

Nothing like reality to open the eyes is there?

 

But you won't will you because you don't have the guts to do it. You're doing nicely so fuck those who aren't!

If we did everything possible for everyone, tax would have to be 99% of our income.

 

However, this is why it is always important to elect the best politicians - and get our priorities right through joined up thinking and effcient spending. £44 million for an unnecessary runway extension, when there are cheaper solutions, would go a long way to helping a lot of people. Stopping many people coming from the UK via an immigration policy i.e. the 100% increase in pensioners in-between the last two cenuses - would mean more money and care services available for those that have paid into the system here etc. etc.

 

Much of that runway, to me, will be analagous to a Jap airfield in world war two - built at the expense of the lives and quality of lives of many human beings living here - through the ignorance and ill-prioritisation of politicians (I also expect the cost to increase by several more millions - especially if the costs are not audited). I also begrudge paying for the operation or care for someone who has simply come over here to retire and avoid inheritance tax and hasn't paid into the system here, when that money could have gone to some of the locals described in this thread, who have paid into the system much of their lives, yet get treated badly. People only get treated like this because the money supply in that budget is limited - so don't blame the DHSS, blame those who 'manage' and allocate the island's spending budgets.

[John Wright]

I sympathise with House and any one with an autistic or otherwise physically, emotionally or mentally challenged or damaged child

 

However scare figures do not do any cause any good.

 

Autism of all spectrums from the very least effect to tyhe most serious socialy crippling is said by the National Autism society to run in UK at 91 per 10,000 or less than one per hundred. With eight hundred live births in IOM, even if rates are double the UK rate in IOM, that means maybe 16 live autistic births per annum. Of these at least half will not need the level of care which entitles to DLA or mobility and will function adequately with some special help at school, children with mild aspergers for instance, which is lumped into the diagnosis criteria

 

The others will qualify for various benefits according to entitlement as set down in the regulations. The parents already receive child benefit, they don't get paid for caring for normal children, that is included in the contract of being a parent. Isn't caring for the less able one also included?

 

The question with all these things is a matter of philosophy and degree and the Hubert Humphrey quote does not say the state is responsible and must pay.

 

The care can be acheived in three ways (and this applies to the young and the elderly and those who need care

 

State institutions, work houses, grim victorian institutions not in favour any more

 

By the state fostering in the population a respect for caring and encouraging good care at home basically for free as it is a moral obligation of families to look after their own. Of course those who have no familise are picked up by a state back up.

 

By care at home with some state assistance

 

I don't think there can be any exepectation that it will all be paid for by the state at market rtaes. The tax implications are horrendous and the lieklihood is a move back to grim work houses and victorian institutions.

 

There is a choice, but the Hubertian choice is one of sacrifice, by the state and individual. It may be impoerfect, but it is prtobably the best we will get

[bluemonday]

ill-prioritisation

That's it in a nutshell.

[gazza]

just a quastion,

if said parents of autistic or otherwise physically, emotionally or mentally challenged or damaged child can not afford to pack there job in and look after said child,

what happins then, do the goverment supply someone to care for the child or do you have to pay for private care,!!!!

[Skeddan]

However scare figures do not do any cause any good.

 

Autism of all spectrums from the very least effect to tyhe most serious socialy crippling is said by the National Autism society to run in UK at 91 per 10,000 or less than one per hundred. With eight hundred live births in IOM, even if rates are double the UK rate in IOM, that means maybe 16 live autistic births per annum. Of these at least half will not need the level of care which entitles to DLA or mobility and will function adequately with some special help at school, children with mild aspergers for instance, which is lumped into the diagnosis criteria

I don't know what you mean by 'scare figures' or where such figures are coming from (??)

 

The figure quoted of 91 per 10,000 or less is one of the studies cited by the National Autistic Society. They also cite the study by Baird et al. of 9-10 year olds in the South Thames area.

 

The results showed a prevalence rate of 38.9 in 10,000 for childhood autism, and 77.2 in 10,000 for other autism spectrum disorders, giving an overall figure of 116 in 10,000 for all autism spectrum disorders (Baird et al, 2006).

 

In this study very few children were identified with Asperger syndrome. The authors acknowledged that some children in mainstream schools who did not have a statement of special educational would have been missed, because of the selection criteria.

 

The authors note that the prevalence estimate found should be regarded as a minimum figure (Baird et al. 2006).

 

http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=235&a=3527

 

A lot hinges on what one classifies as an autism spectrum condition. I don't think the 0.9% can be said to accurately represent the prevalence of autism of all spectrums 'from the very least effect to the most serious'.

 

Anyhow it's good you use a higher estimate that 0.9%. Double this figure might be a bit high, but probably not overly excessive. However it might be quite a bit higher if one included ADHD as an ASC - possibly about 7% rather than 1.8%.

 

Going along with your pretty reasonable estimate of 16 live births a year with this kind of ASC suggests about 280 children below 18 with ASC in IoM, and possibly about 1,500 people with ASC (ex ADHD) in IoM.

 

The question with all these things is a matter of philosophy and degree and the Hubert Humphrey quote does not say the state is responsible and must pay.

I agree, Humphrey is not an authority.

 

However as you might guess I chose 18 as the relevant age as being the age of majority. The principle of parens patriae applies to children below that age (please correct me if I am wrong either in thinking this principle does not apply in IoM or the relevant age of majority is different).

 

The principle of course goes back to Roman law and medieval principles of wardship etc. but ultimately a when a child is made a ward of court (court of wards and liveries), this is exercising royal prerogative and responsibility. Parens patriae may be a quirky principle, but roughly speaking it does mean that the state is ultimately responsible for the child, and the Crown (i.e. state) has responsibility to ensure parents as caregivers are able to provide for the interests of the child.

 

Quite how far one takes parens patriae is debatable (maybe you know of relevant Manx case law on this?). In the New York Court of Appeals this was described in a very extensive way, effectively as the responsibility of a court to protect and ensure "what is in the best interest of the child" in the manner of a "wise affectionate, and careful parent" and make provision for the child accordingly.

 

The care can be achieved in three ways (and this applies to the young and the elderly and those who need care

 

State institutions, work houses, grim victorian institutions not in favour any more

 

By the state fostering in the population a respect for caring and encouraging good care at home basically for free as it is a moral obligation of families to look after their own. Of course those who have no familise are picked up by a state back up.

 

By care at home with some state assistance

John these are not the only ways care can be achieved (even if you count grim victorian institutions as being 'care').

 

The state has the ultimate responsibility to make sure children are looked after and ensure the best interests of the child. I would think that the additional needs of some children with ASC warrant that parents and caregivers are given additional support and provisions where needed for the best interests of the child.

 

The tax implications need not be horrendous, and a great deal more could and probably ought be done for parents like House and Mrs House who have a child with ASC, and also for many others with children with much milder ASC. There are difficulties and needs, and some people with severe ASC are very dependent (as House has described).

 

People with non-severe ASC and aspergers can go on to become quite exceptional and highly talented. This is not likely to be true of children who are in disadvantaged conditions with lack of support, or even where there are very inadequate provisions for their special educational needs. Here the best interests of the child will not be met. Instead of fulfilling their potential in life and abilities, they are 'disabled' - primarily from what might be seen as narrow minded meanness in those who hold the purse-strings of the state. Moral and legal considerations apart, this seems stupidly short-sighted economically and socially as this eventually becomes far more costly in the long run.

 

Aside from the human rights issues, perhaps asking a court to appoint them as foster parents to their own children in order that they get the support needed for the best interests of the child might be a 'cute' possibility. Of course it shouldn't have to come to that.