Hse's dirty war on special need's familys.

Ajnag

It has just emerged again today that the hse took another child into care without warning when the parents asked for help.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0323/hse.html



It was also hinted by a disabled rights campainger 3 weeks ago when the hse took the O'hara children into custody that this had happend to a few other familys. Today that insinuation seems one step closer to the truth. The situation is as I understand it from those involved in campainging for disabled is as follows.

Say you cant cope and need help and the hse take's your children into custody. Say nothing and the hse dosnt have to provide services as apparently your doing fine by yourself.

HOW FÚCKING INSIDIOUS!!!
How political. Id like to know where this policy originated. The poor condition of care institutions around this country has been highlighted time and time again. Yet nothing has been done to take mentally handicapped people out of these sub-human state institutions. And you wanna know why?

Think of it this way, Look at the states service provision to prisoners, and look at the states budget for the dept of justice. Every prisioner is to the state a libability and to protect itself the state has to go to extrodinary lenths to indemnify itself against litigation. Now why are mentally disabled people any different?
Maybe its because the state can and do's take their assets.
Maybe its because the person in question do'snt have the capacity to approach a soliciter and invoke legal proceding.

The fact is that this state hold's violent criminals in higher reguard then its weakest and most defenseless citizens. The fact is that rapist's and peadophiles recieve more in the way of services then the disabled.

I call on Cork and any pd rep's here to come forth and explain themselves and what they intend to do about this.
I also call on any other political party members here to say what they intend to do.

Fúck this shít!

billy the squid

the health boards have been breaking up families like this for decades. up until now it didnt get as much publicity, I would like to be surprised by this but I am not.

monument

I'm starting to think we live it a dictatorship - ‘ask for help and we’ll take your children away’ – it’s unbelievable. And it’s like a work of fiction that they’ve done it more then once.

They are really trying to scare these families into shuting up.

mycroft

monument wrote:

I'm starting to think we live it a dictatorship - ‘ask for help and we’ll take your children away’ – it’s unbelievable. And it’s like a work of fiction that they’ve done it more then once.

They are really trying to scare these families into shuting up.

Agreed its the level of casual arrogance.

"You've dared to critize our shabby health service. You've spent years working with the system being marginlized and ignored, then we'll take your children"

The sheer contempt for the families, the lack of humanity beggars belief, the mentality which minors a magdeline laundry for the level of basic humanity absent just beggars believe.

As mentioned earlier, I've watched hours of the O'Hara family, and to snatch four children from a home where the family are merely asking for basic levels of resources from the health board is staggering. I can only imagine the trauma the parents went through over the days of the case, I cant imagine what their youngest went through in residental care.

bonkey

monument wrote:

They are really trying to scare these families into shuting up.

Are they?

I'm not familiar enough with the resources of the Service, so that's a genuine question. Let me explain...

Is it possible that the nature of resources that the Service has at present only allow them two options - "all out" or "all in", so to speak. If the parents are saying "we cannot cope", could it be that the only option that is available to care for the child is to take it into care?

Like I said...I'm genuinely asking. I don't know.

If that is the case, then there is unquestionably a need for an immediate and careful review of the structures and funding available in this area. Of course, thats probably true of most (if not all) of the Health Care system.

I would unquestionably agree that the manner in which this is being done seems unforgiveable, but I'm just wondering if the intention is not one of intimidation, but rather one where they find themselves in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation and have chosen that despite the criticism, they must carry out their obligation to give care.

No matter which way you look at it, the HSE is not coming out of this looking rosy, but I'm just wondering if I'm missing some information that clarifies what other options they have. Not what options they should have (not that its not relevant, but first things first), but what they have.

jc

monument

Possible ‘trying to’ was to strong, they may not actually be trying to shut these families up.

Ajnag

Is it possible that the nature of resources that the Service has at present only allow them two options - "all out" or "all in", so to speak. If the parents are saying "we cannot cope", could it be that the only option that is available to care for the child is to take it into care?

I see what your saying bonkey, However when we take a few things into consideration, catch 22 seems less likely.
First up, this is only a recent development, Second of all it seems to be contained to the North eastern hse although it may turn out be national. And third of all the hse is free and expected to be transparent in how it operates with respect to the law. If they are in a catch 22 situation then supposedly they are free to say so.

From my pov, this just is way too convienant, especially considering it just happens to coinside with disability groups to get rights based legislation. The govt are probably shítting bricks with the prospect of responsiblity when the health service is already fubared, However thats their problem, and is no excuse for the existing situation where the disabled are discrimated against in favor of criminals.

MorningStar

bonkey wrote:

Are they?

Like I said...I'm genuinely asking. I don't know.

If that is the case, then there is unquestionably a need for an immediate and careful review of the structures and funding available in this area. Of course, thats probably true of most (if not all) of the Health Care system.

I would unquestionably agree that the manner in which this is being done seems unforgiveable, but I'm just wondering if the intention is not one of intimidation, but rather one where they find themselves in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation and have chosen that despite the criticism, they must carry out their obligation to give care.

No matter which way you look at it, the HSE is not coming out of this looking rosy, but I'm just wondering if I'm missing some information that clarifies what other options they have. Not what options they should have (not that its not relevant, but first things first), but what they have.

jc

I have tried making a similar arguement on the humanities forum and got a load of abuse for not understanding the families situation etc.... It's vaild to ask for more information before deciding the HSE are trying to shut people up or bullying them. Media reports are easily skewed and will fuel a point if there is interest. Who eactly "slammed" the HSE in the RTE headline?
I mentioned that the O'Hare parents were being reckless for driving with continual lack of sleep. People went nuts saying how they were "forced". While I accept they had limited chioces it didn't make it acceptable that they risked their own family and risk other road users' lives. None of them would agree that the O'Hare parents were responsible for their own actions on driving.
The projection of human motives onto a whole organisation seems a little much.

Ajnag

The projection of human motives onto a whole organisation seems a little much.

How so?
Do's the organisation not consist of humans? Who sets the structure of the organisation? and do'snt management studies acknowledge the presence of political factors with in organisations?

Now, Consider the relationship between a govermental organisation and it's management ie, the goverment. Is the goverment a managerial body? No. The goverment is a political body. The only stucture within this scenario which should be insular from human motives is the law, and even that is said to be an ass at times.

Now if you wish to remain neutral, and state that their may be circumstances that we are unaware of causing the hses actions, then fair enough you are entitled to that opinion. And it is valid to question what we see.

However, your question's do not have any substantive grounds in observation yet. Whereas those of us who are less forgiving towards the hse, have 2 familys in the same Identical situation, who also happen to be in the same geographical area, and we know that in one case the hse was judged in a court of law to have acted wrong. Some of us also have personall experiance in the political realitys of this, and know first hand some of the attitudes that have prevailed towards the disabled in Ireland.

As re your point on driving, So what, is it not out of context? Their ability as parents was what the discussion was about in the context of the hse's actions. I dont agree with driving recklessly and your correct that it shouldnt be tolerated, just your doing so in the wrong context. There are many parents outhere who get up every morning and drive to work without the proper amount of sleep required to do so. Its a problem not just restricted to the parents of authistic children, so why bring it into this context when as a valid point it should be disscussed with relevance to road safety in general and not in reguard to the hse's actions.

Ajnag

Btw, Thanks for linking this thread in the humanitys disscussion, I was unaware that it was being discussed there also.

MorningStar

Ajnag wrote:

How so?
Do's the organisation not consist of humans? Who sets the structure of the organisation? and do'snt management studies acknowledge the presence of political factors with in organisations?

Yes an organisation is made of people but there is a system to it. The HSE would have a ton of procedures and regulations to complie with. THe fact it took 9 hours of legal debate to decide what happened to the O'Hare family suggests that there was some valid arguements about care. The political pressure may have effected the judges decision more easily than a whole structured orgainisation.



[QUOTE=Ajnag
However, your question's do not have any substantive grounds in observation yet. Whereas those of us who are less forgiving towards the hse, have 2 familys in the same Identical situation, who also happen to be in the same geographical area, and we know that in one case the hse was judged in a court of law to have acted wrong. Some of us also have personall experiance in the political realitys of this, and know first hand some of the attitudes that have prevailed towards the disabled in Ireland.
[/QUOTE]
The judge did not deem the HSE actions as wrong in fact he decided to think about but decided the children need to go into immediate care. There aren't two identical situations one is a family of 5 special needs children and the other has two FOSTER parents and one special needs child. So my observations are a little clearer than yours. I only asked one question to prove a slant from the media. Your lack of detail in this situation combined with your personal experience (I'm reading bias for that) might mean your not the best person to give a balanced view on this

[QUOTE=Ajnag
As re your point on driving, So what, is it not out of context? Their ability as parents was what the discussion was about in the context of the hse's actions. I dont agree with driving recklessly and your correct that it shouldnt be tolerated, just your doing so in the wrong context. There are many parents outhere who get up every morning and drive to work without the proper amount of sleep required to do so. Its a problem not just restricted to the parents of authistic children, so why bring it into this context when as a valid point it should be disscussed with relevance to road safety in general and not in reguard to the hse's actions.[/QUOTE]

Never said parents of autistic children were the only people who are driving recklessly. If you don't think putting the children at risk everyday is relevant to the discussion of the care for siad children I disagree. As we are discussing specific cases specific facts are relevant. THe O'Hare parents said on live radio that they couldn't cope. They also admitted they wrote letters stating so and admitted on radio that this was one of the reason the HSE wanted to take their children into care.
The HSE can't comment in too much detail on specific cases so we are also hearing a one sided argument. Try to consider this before assuming the HSE are evil and have some agenda to shut families up.

Ajnag

Yes an organisation is made of people but there is a system to it. The HSE would have a ton of procedures and regulations to complie with. THe fact it took 9 hours of legal debate to decide what happened to the O'Hare family suggests that there was some valid arguements about care. The political pressure may have effected the judges decision more easily than a whole structured orgainisation.

Either way the judge ruled in their favour, For all we know the Hse's defense could have put any no. of arguments forward, still the judge didnt take it. Now what exactly are you saying? That a govermental organisation is less easily swayed then law? Come off it.
Law takes precedence and has a science to it, its not perry mason where the better argument wins. Law use's presise language and terms that are the reason that it takes 4 years of college and a further 3 to become a solicter.
To assert that :

The political pressure may have effected the judges decision more easily than a whole structured orgainisation.

is rediculous and beyond sublime. Anyone who knows anything about Irelands civil service and associated organisations will tell you about the level of influence politics plays within. To suggest that a judge is more suseptable to political sway then a govt dept is incredulous. Not that politics do'snt hold its place within legal society, but the Irish state was designed to leave the law insulated from political influence. The civil service was not designed in such a way.

THe O'Hare parents said on live radio that they couldn't cope. They also admitted they wrote letters stating so and admitted on radio that this was one of the reason the HSE wanted to take their children into care.

So the hse didnt have the power to offer them respite, instead it had to remove the children in a tramatic situation causing regression to the childrens progress. Pah! Hardly, Its rather convienient that the hse can now hold this over parents heads who demand their right to service. A get out of jail card if you would to avoid provision of services in an already fubared organisation.

The HSE can't comment in too much detail on specific cases so we are also hearing a one sided argument. Try to consider this before assuming the HSE are evil and have some agenda to shut families up.

But they are free to comment on their responsiblilitys and the laws that require them to act without reference to individual cases. You speak of the organisational structure, then why isnt this govt dept meeting its requirements for transparency?

Also I didnt say the hse were evil, I do however have grounds for suspicion as to their motives. They have lost one case in court and are now under the spotlight again. If those arent grounds for reasonable suspicion then what is.

Ajnag

Missed this:

The judge did not deem the HSE actions as wrong in fact he decided to think about but decided the children need to go into immediate care. There aren't two identical situations one is a family of 5 special needs children and the other has two FOSTER parents and one special needs child.

I dont know for certain, but I doubt it was the same judge who gave and then resinded the care order. I wish I could find out, but Afaik the judge who issued the care order was not named.
In both case's the children are special need's,
In both case's the parents appealed for help,
In both case's the hse removed the children from costody of the parents without offer of respite.
How Identical do you want the case's to be?

So my observations are a little clearer than yours. I only asked one question to prove a slant from the media. Your lack of detail in this situation combined with your personal experience (I'm reading bias for that) might mean your not the best person to give a balanced view on this

Yes I am biased, but that by no means credits you as being clearer or nessisarly more centered. My bias comes from years of experiance, and I am willing to be transparent about it.
May I ask how you can affirm your objectivity?

MorningStar

Ajnag wrote:

Yes I am biased, but that by no means credits you as being clearer or nessisarly more centered. My bias comes from years of experiance, and I am willing to be transparent about it.
May I ask how you can affirm your objectivity?

If you admitt bias then you are saying your aren't objective. I don't claim to be complete unbias I just reasoned out some of your points. There are reasonable questions to ask. I have put some reasons forward to why. I haven'assumed motives just that the story isn't complete and maybe the media could be fuelling the fire. THe HSE could have been politically motivated as could the Judge. Custodidy cases are about opinion and not legal arguements. There is also no proof that the HSE "hold" this over people just OPINION. It is valid opinion but it doesn't make it right and it appears to be based on a bias and lack of all the facts. We can disagree or agree on it but you should conceed the fact it's opinion and it's based on many assumptions. THE HSE cannot be transaparent as it is about medical care and many personal details which by law they can't comment on. Each case is different and a cookie cutter solution is not valid on a limited budget. I don't agree that the similarities in the cases mentioned are enough to view them the same. THe number of children and the fact foster care is involved make them quite different to me but if you don't agree that's fine but many people would see the differences.