HSSD unable to provide evidence of problems

Ostensibly calling to discuss my letter, without asking me to explain my concerns, the president of HSSD proceeded to tell me why they were misplaced.

When I was forced to interrupt him, he informed me that 'you cannot do a cost/benefit analysis where vulnerable people are involved'. Sounds great doesn't it?

So what was HSSD doing when it refused to fund medically recommended drugs or treatment to vulnerable people in need of operations? What was it doing when it dismissed a daughter's concern at the neglectful treatment of her elderly mother, with the response that HSSD gets more letters of thanks than it does of complaints? It appears that the department can make cost/benefit judgements, but only when they can be made out of the public eye.

If it really cannot make such judgements when it comes to significant expenditures on publicly appealing projects, no wonder it has had so many difficulties in operating within budgets approved by the States in recent years.

I was told that 'all the "professionals" in the island are in favour of it.' Of course they would be, aren't we all? However, we are not told how many of them could provide specific instances of abuse of vulnerable people.

Again, I ask, what is the actual evidence (not hearsay) of the extent of the problem?

Let me turn to the response to my letter by HSSD's 'Director of Communities' (whatever that title means).

Once again, we see a States department attempting to drown legitimate questions in a barrage of diversionary information.

If the 'director' cares to read my letter again, she may see that nowhere did I say that the proposed legislation was undesirable or that it related to a small problem. What I did want to know was whether the department had taken the trouble to establish the size of the problem, so that an objective decision could be taken as to whether it was so large that it should take priority in the absorption of available monies and staff resources, bearing in mind that we often hear that we have insufficient nurses and other staff to universally provide the level of care needed by all patients in our hospital.

We are told that the proposal will not cost the taxpayer more money because the cost is being taken out of the department's current budget. Whether this is before or after it comes back to the States to fund a budget overrun remains to be seen. Surely this justification is another example of our politicians' peculiar financial logic. A logic that leads departments to claim righteous credit for 'economies' made by transferring costs to another department, or by levelling fees for public services that historically people considered were what they paid taxes for.

Their 'logic' says that, because they have already budgeted for it, it will not require additional funding. This carefully avoids my question as to whether this problem is so widespread that it should take priority over other serious demands on the health budget.

When a problem has been recognised, competent management would a.) first objectively quantify it with factual evidence; then b.) examine it to establish how existing law fails to address the problem; then c.) seek the most efficient and cost-effective solution.

HSSD may have recognised a problem – that has not taken rocket science. Many relatives of people 'lacking capacity' are already aware that our power of attorney law needs amendment.

HSSD has avoided telling us whether it has done b.) and I seriously question whether its proposed solution satisfies c.).

MICHAEL A. WARD,

Address withheld.