Live webchat with David Cameron - this Thursday 19th, 1.45 pm

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello all - David Cameron is coming on to Mumsnet to answer your questions this Thursday at 1.45-2.45. Please post advance questions here if you can't make it on Thursday. (And please read our Webchat guidelines above before posting ie only one question each). Many thanks.

theyoungvisiter

Yes, that is really an awful situation. It shouldn't happen - especially for relatively inexpensive things like nappies and wheelchairs. Maybe things like nappies should be available on prescriptions? I know my mum gets compression stockings on prescriptions, even though they are not actually a drug. I know it's not the same, but it sounds like a similar scenario.

In general though, there are going to be more and more problems like this. Just yesterday I saw a story about how an expensive cancer drug isn't going to be on the NHS, because it only prolongs life for terminally ill patients, it doesn't cure them.

So things are already rationed in the NHS. The NHS just doesn't have an infinite amount of money.

I support the NHS having a bigger budget overall, and more of what the NHS does have going to special needs.

In the end, though, if budgets have to be rationed, I would rather decisions on spending were made by me - or at least by my GP, or any actual doctors and medical professionals I am dealing with.

Local authorities and people in Whitehall who just see SN kids in terms of numbers and targets won't care about them.

Anyway, need to go and make lunch. Thanks for all the replies and for not biting my head off!

Should add that when I say "relatively inexpensive" I mean for the NHS - not for individuals!

Thanks for asking that Matey, as it was something that I was wondering too.

This is the problem. The politician spouts a soundbite which to the uninvolved and inexperienced listener sounds good. It is only when this idea is filtered by the people who are already dealing with these issues on a daily basis that we can really judge if it is a sound idea.

Btw, I read somewhere that MN had closed the doors to new members from the time that the webchat was announced in the press so that no nasty rabbelrousers could join. We have enough of our own.

Which also puts paid to the Labour Activist idea that the press has floated.

Really mmelindt? closed to new members?

What about today?

Cos I bet we DO now get lots of activists and PR people parachuting in with all the meeja interest...

And I disagree with the idea of giving the parents a preagreed budget for caring for a child with SN.

There are surely plenty of people like the posters on the SN board who are energetic and forceful (or have become so) and research what their DC need. I am sure that there are however also many who would be overwhelmed by the decision making.

And who then decides what therapy and help the child needs? The parent? The GP?

That is a lot of responsibility to put on a parent, and then all the bookkeeping that would accompany the budgeting.

Wilf
Yes, I read it in one of the dozens of interviews. Not sure how long they blocked new members, will try to find the article.

Yes, Justine said that MN was closed to new registrations the moment they made the announcement that DC was coming on.

Justine Roberts, co-founder of Mumsnet, said she had seen 'no evidence' of an orchestrated attempt to undermine Mr Cameron.

She said that the website had closed down registration to new users after the interview with Mr Cameron was announced.

Arf.com

matey - budgets do have to be rationed, and yes I can see some justification for having a budget for kind of "discretionary" spends.

For example it might conceivably be better for some people have a state of the art wheelchair and no mobility vehicle, while others might prefer a basic model wheelchair for home plus a mobility vehicle for out and about - or whatever - I'm using silly examples here but you get my gist.

But nappies are not a discretionary spend. If you need them you need them. You can't decide to make your child continent in order to save your budget. It's a medical need - just like support stockings, or medication.

Also I can see lots of problems implementing it - if you don't get any more money for having a child with continence problems then it unfairly penalises that group.

But if you do get into a situation where parents get more money for having an incontinent child doesn't that open up a minefield? Who decides what continence is? The parents? What if they need the extra money so much they claim their child is incontinent in order to get the extra cash? Or doctors? How do they decide? What if a child is mostly continent but has accidents?

This seems to me to be creating an enormously complex system in order to solve a fairly simple problem.

so is nick clegg going to come on here then?
i hope so, because i need to decide who to vote for out of labour or lib dem.

i will not be voting conservative.

ooo I dunno Riven [sucks teeth]

I hear there's a thriving black market for plus size nappies in the car park round the back of Argos.

[joking of course - I agree exactly. Why implement an enormously complex budget system requiring assessments and record keeping and different levels of qualifying need when you could - er - give a nappy?]

I could write for the Daily Mail couldn't I?

Don't forget that the single mothers split up their happy families in order to receive more benefits.

Back from lunch.

theyoungvisiter, the more I think about it, the the problem sounds harder and harder, not easier! There is no easy way to the NHS to measure the required 'dosage' for nappies, like with medicines.

Who should decide? It's not clear to me.

I think the best solution is probably to put them on prescription, with the number available decided in consultation with doctors, and reviewed every few months.

Having said that, health care policy on what is available is decided by the NHS anyway - so if there is a central 4-a-day limit, the GP won't be able to do anything about it. Which means the ultimate decision would be not be made by your GP.

A blunt way of putting it: if they are going to increase the 'nappy budget' by £5m, what part of the NHS are they going to spend £5m less on?

That's not to say that riven shouldn't fight like mad to make the case for nappies! Of course she should.

It's really not very nice at all to think about what parts of the NHS should be rationed. I'm glad I don't have to do it - it must be an awful job.

If there has to be rationing, then I want to be the person deciding - or at least, know the medical people deciding.

"A blunt way of putting it: if they are going to increase the 'nappy budget' by £5m, what part of the NHS are they going to spend £5m less on?"

Well firstly I don't know what the budget for nappies for disabled children is, but I bet it's pretty small and a drop in the ocean compared to (say) the budget for treating ingrowing toenails, or indigestion, or homeopathic medicine.

Let's use a comparison - what do we think the budget is for providing toilet paper on hospital wards? Broadly similar? Probably.

Does anyone say to a patient on a ward, "Sorry you can't wipe your bottom today because we need the money for diabetics?" No.

Do they say "Well we can't give unlimited toilet paper in case you sell unused rolls on ebay?" No.

Do they try to analyse how many bowel movements is reasonable and provide toilet paper on that basis? No.

That would be ridiculous

smallwhitecat
Noone has said that he suffered less, imo.

The loss of a child is the worst thing that can happen to a parent, whether they are rich or poor.

However, the Camerons were fortunately in the financial situation so that they could concentrate on spending time with their son, rather than on fighting bureaucracy for the support that they needed.

No, it does not make his death easier to bear but it meant that they had more of that precious time with him when he was alive.

DC was the one who said that he hadn't experienced the 4 nappy rule with Ivan. Don't think anyone here has used a SN child to gain political points? That would be shocking.

It has been suggested that the Cameron's may not be aware of the rule for a variety of reasons, with one being that it's a local council decision. The other possibility being that the Cameron's, for whatever reason, weren't aware of the benefits, or perhaps didn't have to rely on them.

smallwhitecat, both RIven and DC have parented a disabled child. That is a level playing field. The only difference between them is that DC is financially better off, and therefore might not understand the financial burden for lower income families with disabled children.

Love alone does not enough nappies buy.

theyoungvisiter

I agree that it is a drop in the ocean - but sadly, everything has to have a budget, even if it's a small one.

You're probably right though - the parent could just get however many nappies they need on prescription. It's such a small amount of money for the NHS that they could probably do that and not blink.

More generally though, I think this is going to become a massive issue. We're going to hear more and more stories about NHS rationing as we get more and more expensive drugs for rarer and rarer medical conditions.

BTW the thought of a civil servant in charge of toilet paper? ROFL!