Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

HSE failure to empathise with disabled children and their parents.

  • 14-01-2022 12:05am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭ political analyst


    This 9-year old boy has cystic fibrosis and cerebral palsy. The primary school said it can only let him return to class when, on HSE advice, a mechanical hoist has been installed to facilitate his use of the toilet.


    But his parents say that he is able to use the toilet without using a hoist - why doesn't the HSE accept that?


    Obviously, there is a lack of empathy on the HSE's part. In this case, the HSE's response is the 'stock answer' given by authorities to journalists: We can't comment on individual cases. If the child's parents want the public to know about the case, why is the HSE still unwilling to comment?



Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,314 ✭✭✭✭ Cookie_Monster


    Why is this the HSE's fault and not the school?



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,109 ✭✭✭✭ Mrs OBumble


    Read the article:

    Without a hoist, the kid can only climb onto the toilet with help.

    As he gets bigger, the injury risk for an adult helping him without a hoist increases. Before hoists were widely used, many nurses / caregivers etc got serious back injuries from lifting people who were too heavy for them. So now the health advice is to use the hoist, for the safety of both sides. I don't know what age/weight this starts at,

    The parents want the kid to use the toilet without a hoist, so he doesn't "lose the mobility he has" - effectively they don't want the school to get or use a hoist. It doesn't say if they have offered to do the lifting themselves - but even if they have, the school insurance likely won't allow it due to the injury risk.

    Long and short of it is that the kid will need the hoist eventually.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,703 ✭✭✭✭ Strumms


    his parents not qualified doctors, physios or occupational therapists…. Whatever risk assessment the HSE did or suitable information they are basing this decision on is for the wellbeing of the young man..and staff too.

    that said whatever aids should have been in place by now once his family or the HSE gave the reasonable notice…

    I don’t buy this going back viewpoint….it’s a safety aid, he ends up having a fall it’s worse again. CP can’t be cured… but independene should be encouraged where appropriate, is it appropriate here ? I don’t know… people IN the know don’t think so it seems.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,954 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152


    How is it obvious that there is a lack of empathy on the HSE's part?

    The article doesn't address many of the potential issues. Is there an insurance issue? Have the parents got unrealistic aspirations? It could be argued (but I am not necessarily doing so) that it is the parents who lack empathy in trying to force their son into an aspect of mobility that the medical advice says he is not capable of.

    The outrage against the system that follows any of these articles may often be justified, but in most situations, as in this one, the case against the system remains unproven.

    As for the stock answer, unless there are signed waivers from the parents, and potentially a court waiver on behalf of the child, then under GDPR, the HSE is unable to discuss personal details of cases.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n


    The usual whinging of people who don’t get their way. The only reason the boy is in the situation is because the parents don’t accept the solution suggested by the HSE.

    There are countless reasons why the hoist solution is safer for everyone involved in the process, but clearly reason can’t beat self entitlement.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭ CrabRevolution


    The school/HSE are damned if they do and damned if they don't in these situations. They get the usual abuse about "common sense" and "empathy" demanding that they ignore their own guidelines in order to carry out a simplistic yet risky solution.

    Yet then when something goes wrong in future this cavalier attitude is forgotten about and they'll be before the courts being told that the buck stops with them and they had a duty which they failed etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 32,218 ✭✭✭✭ Gatling


    Op you don't much about kids with special needs , these cases are never just a case of oh here's the fix it's all ok now.

    It's nothing to do with empathy and the hse

    Seems to problem Is the parents

    Langley , Virginia



Advertisement