Advanced search

Adult social care

(24 Posts)
aliceliddell Wed 06-Jul-11 17:25:39

In view of today's decision that a 67 yr old disabled woman cannot have night time care but must wear incontinence pads instead, AIBU to think Kensington & Chelsea council, one of the wealthiest areas in the world, has a low opinion of the dignity of disabled people?

UsingMainlySpoons Wed 06-Jul-11 20:39:34

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

itsallgoneabitMrBloom Wed 06-Jul-11 21:52:17

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of no night time care I am surprised any Council still supply this care routinely, they dont in our area - it costs more than £100 for a waking night - £700 ++ per week a lot of nursing care homes charge less than that for a weeks 24hour care (adjust up to London prices). If she has a personal budget she may be able to organise her own care to support her at night.

LaurieFairyCake Wed 06-Jul-11 22:03:29

Unfortunately I disagree. If she couldn't afford it then of course she should have night-time care but she owns a house in Kensington - the council pointed out to her that she could offer a student rent-free accomodation and they in return could help her to the loo - but she didn't want a stranger living in her house.

While I don't agree with the councils view of suggesting she could have a student in her house I do think that she could sell her Kensington house (worth anything between £500,000 - as an ex council house and £35 million)

I believe we should fund our needs as far as we can if we are able. If she can't afford it then I do believe we should provide that care.

I don't think we should be paying £10,000 per year for night time care for people who own houses in Kensington.

scottishmummy Wed 06-Jul-11 22:08:35

YABU your summation is erroneous and way off mark. and no LA is cash rich regardless of the socio-economic profile it may cover.LA have responsibility to be prudent with cash

Shoesytwoesy Wed 06-Jul-11 22:10:19

sorry don't get the op at all, it si normal to wear pads if you can't get to the toilet. have i missed a big news story?

amothersplaceisinthewrong Wed 06-Jul-11 22:13:20

The country is broke, such care cannot be afforded. She could sell her house and live in a smaller property or a cheaper area and fund her own night nurse.

jugglingmug Wed 06-Jul-11 22:16:04

They actually said she had to wear pads instead? Because that would be wrong.

However if they said she would have to pay for it herself, that seems fair.

Shoesytwoesy Wed 06-Jul-11 22:24:03

more to this story me thinks

Birdsgottafly Wed 06-Jul-11 22:36:26

I was very disappointed that this was not upheld. Elderly people quickly lose continence if not encouraged to toilet when they recieve the signals.

Under the Fair Access to Care Services she does come under 'middle' need because of that risk, also the risk of sores, she is already in a wheelchair, so is in danger of pressure sores.

It doesn't seem to be because of income and i think that this is a big set back in respect for the elderly and as the reporting says means a loss of dignity.

You have to 'promote independance' in care homes and hospitals but this ruling means that the LA doesn't have the same duty. What next, the elderly aren't going out so don't need washing as often as the rest of us.

I think it is because it is not viewed as inportant because of her age and the attitude that she won't be continent for long.

scottishmummy Wed 06-Jul-11 22:38:03

considerably,more to this this isnt state vs individual
client was offered assistance technologies and support, offered Extra care sheltered accommodation,she declined

Birdsgottafly Wed 06-Jul-11 22:38:24

Birdsgottafly Wed 06-Jul-11 22:38:34

Birdsgottafly Wed 06-Jul-11 22:38:59

Don't know why my link isn't working, sorry.

Birdsgottafly Wed 06-Jul-11 22:44:35

I was going in my original post say that her need was 'substantial' but i had thought that had been dropped but it is still considered to be substantial, so really she should be getting the help.

Birdsgottafly Wed 06-Jul-11 22:49:25

This has implications across social care, as they can now change the care plans in light of the resources available.

scottishmummy Wed 06-Jul-11 22:51:01

this is no significant change.always retained ability to review and reassess needs

faverolles Wed 06-Jul-11 22:51:02

here's the link

scottishmummy Wed 06-Jul-11 22:54:00

there are other more discursive links

Birdsgottafly Wed 06-Jul-11 22:59:44

I was trying to link the actual case preview, her needs wasn't reassessed though, under FAC's she had a substantial need to be helped to toliet, and that didn't change, the LA withdrew the offer for assisstance to use the comode at night. The LA was found to have failed in its duty to deliver the care that she needed but then changed the care plan to match resources.

Shoesytwoesy Wed 06-Jul-11 23:03:32

it is sad(we are facing all this with a elderly family member) but tbh with the cuts to social care, there won't be enough in the ss budget to pay for someone to have night care to help her to the toilet. night care is an expensive option and I should imagine only paid for if the person need more help than this iynwim.
the added trouble is the incontinence service is crap, our family member is doubly incontinent and about to be sent home from hospital, she live alone and will have to wear pads, according to the hospital they will keep them "dry" until morning, but that is a 6 oclock hospital morning, sadly the carer doesn't come in some mornings until 9........ lovely

aliceliddell Thu 07-Jul-11 12:37:15

Do you really believe you should be made to sell your house because you have a stroke? What about a heart attack? Or a complicated pregnancy? This amounts to discrimination against disabled people. I don't have a problem with some kind of property tax, but it should apply to everybody based on ability to pay, not fall exclusively on those in need based on ability to walk.

Rocky12 Thu 07-Jul-11 12:58:34

I think with all the cuts and budget issues we WILL need to think about how we can fund some of our needs. It is not always paid for by 'someone else' If you have a £750k house and demand care to be paid for by SS and local authorities I am not sure that is reasonable. I have often heard that people want to leave their houses for grandchildren etc but I am not expecting to have much left over as I intend to live to 100 and I dont expect others to be funding this! Its right that I should be paying for it.

aliceliddell Thu 07-Jul-11 14:22:59

No prob with tax being paid when house is sold after death of owner. I see no reason why I should inherit the cost of my Dad's house, I never paid towards him buying it. Feel the same re. dd and my house. But it's not my fault I'm disabled. We have these ideas about human rights these days. Not as convenient or cheap as bunging us in institutions, but there it is. PC gawn mad.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: