Published: Wednesday, 4th June, 2008 09:50
Patients need a voice
Print Article
I write in response to the letter “Accept hospice decision”.
There are a number of points within the letter on which I would like to comment.
“Scare tactics” — at no time has the hospice or anyone associated with it resorted to “scare tactics”.
“Failed to do so by reasoned argument” — the argument being put forward by the hospice is reasoned and at this moment, the hospice has not failed.
The argument being put forward by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board is not reasoned or logical.
“Health board is proposing to transfer these beds to Blawarthill” — there was no consultation with the hospice over the removal of the 30 beds.
The author of the letter made a comment regarding an Archdiocesan pastoral letter which “tried to make this a pro-life issue”. What the Archdiocese publish in its literature is its choice.
The hospice did not contribute to a pastoral letter.
If the Archdiocese made a claim that “this transfer would hasten the day when euthanasia would be practised in homes for the elderly” then that is its perception of the current situation.
The hospice has nothing against other providers of care for the elderly nor Blawarthill Hospital.
The hospice is trying to protect the rights of the elderly who are in need of hospice care.
“Then again we are told that without this funding, the hospice will close altogether” — the author of the letter commented they had written to the Health secretary and she has no such plan.
The author did not say they had written to the health board, however they appear to be in a position of authority to say the health board has no “such plan” either.
It may not be the plan of the health board or Health secretary, however without adequate funding, the palliative care services will be jeopardised.
The 30 palliative care beds receive only 50 per cent funding from the health board, which means the hospice is providing 15 palliative care beds for free.
At the moment, the hospice must raise £31,000 per week to provide its services — to try to raise more than this would be an impossible task.
It is not clear how the author of the letter has come to know that “negotiations are continuing as to an alternative use for the hospice beds”.
The hospice does not want an alternative use for its beds, which is “the real issue behind the hospice campaign”.
I would have thought the author would have known this as they seem to be so well-informed.
What would be interesting to find out is why Glasgow City Council (GCC) was the only local authority consulted by the health board in relation to the transfer of hospice beds to Blawarthill Hospital and why councillors at GCC have been given the right to choose the types of patients the hospice is to look after?
There is no guarantee the hospice “would stay open ad infinitum” with social care patients because the hospice is expected to provide this type of care for less funding.
The argument, however, is about patients and the hospice was not established to provide social care.
The author of the letter turned the issue around on Sister Rita.
Yes indeed, the health board had the results of an “objective study” — “objective” remains in question, but it had the results of a study. It took them until 2008 to provide these results to the hospice.
And yes, they are “publicly funded beds” which, if the health board and Glasgow City Council get their way, will soon become part of a Private Finance Initiative arrangement at Blawarthill Hospital.
Sister Rita is “defending her own territory” which is the care of the dying — patients who are reaching the end of their lives.
And “naturally enough” she is right to do so.
This service has been provided to the community for 58 years. Why should it be changed now?
And why should the author of the letter feel the right to question Sister Rita in defending what she has worked incredibly hard to provide?
The letter commented on the “brouhaha of petitions and the mass-circulated letters to this one and that”.
The petitions and letters represent the voice of the public — the public which benefits from the service provided by the hospice, and patients and families who have received this care.
And not forgetting the public, which has for 58 years, financially supported the hospice.
The increase to 50 per cent funding of the palliative care beds at the hospice has been a recent adjustment, as has the improvement in funding for elderly care.
The public has a right to petition and write letters — it has sustained the hospice — and at the end of the day, the health board is a publicly funded body.
The hospice really does provide “the best care for the money”.
Ask anyone who has ever had a relative or friend cared for there, I am sure they would support this view.
For the author to ask that “the good sister set an example of Christian resignation to us all, and accept what the health board decides” is an unacceptable request, which would fly in the face of what Sister Rita believes in — the elderly patients in the hospice need a voice. Sister Rita is prepared to be that voice and stand up for what is right for those patients at the end of life.
It is a somewhat scathing comment on which the author of the letter chose to close their letter.
It is not the right of that author to comment on who Sister Rita chooses to “minister” to or is “closest to her Lord”.
The author, who remained nameless, had a lot to say.
It would have had far greater impact had they been prepared to share their name with readers.
Hugh Murphy, Dalmuir
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumbleupon
Further Details
Watching the Watchmen