-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Bathurst <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, July 26, 1999 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: parents of (and)
Dear Laurance,
You said
>Hi everyone
>
>The question posed about "respite from what" and might I add "what is
>respite" are good healthy questions to ponder. Judy, by asking this you
>may indeed be led to more concrete answers. I believe that the linear style
>thinking of rationalism tends to perpetuate the status quo rather than
>promote innovation in terms of finding solutions. For instance: research
>methods used in community consultations that aim to find out what the
>respite needs of parents are, pose questions such as "what would you really
>like in terms of respite care (dream a little)?"
>
>This looks as though it's giving a lot of scope for people to say what
>their needs are and what they want isn't it? I'm not so sure. The
>question already frames the thinking so that any answers will be somehow
>aligned to current definitions of what respite is and what respite services
>are already available and what form they take. Thats why I say forget
>respite care. It is a bandaid approach to a gaping wound. It aims to
>maintain the status quo (explicitly). Provide the children and adults with
>disabilities with the services they need and provide parents with the
>services they need. The community consultation questionnaire should thus
>say, "how could you best be supported....?". I say all this assuming that
>attitudes are not going to change rapidly enough for the need for support
>agencies to go away just yet.
>With best regards
>
>Laurence Bathurst
>University of Sydney
>School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
>Faculty of Health Sciences
>East Street (P.O. Box 170)
>Lidcombe NSW 1825
>Australia
You are quite correct when you say the right questions aren't being asked.
So why not? Perhaps a hypothetical scenario may give insight.
There exists a Carers Association, funded by government, to provide support,
advice and advocacy for unpaid carers(Family and friends) who provide
support with the activities of daily living to younger people with a
disability and the frail aged. This is an incorporated Association
(government won't fund any other kind) and unfortunately the constitution of
the Association fails to identify carers who meet the above definition as
the senior partners of this association. This leads to the Association
being managed, via its Managemnt Committee, by service providers and
professionals who justify their positions of power by stating that carers
who do meet the definition are too overworked and overwhelmed by their
caring role to take part in the management of their Association.
Governments, collectively, have bestowed credibility on this
organisation,viewed by them as the representative voice of carers, and
constantly seek the organisation's advice on carer policy issues. So how do
they research carers' needs? Simple really. You form a small committee, say
four people all of whom are service providers. You discuss what carers need
most and surprise, surprise the answer is more services. You then draft a
questionnaire to be sent out to carers stating "which of the following
services do you require most?" Respite, counselling, aroma therapy or
relaxation classes are the choices offered. There is an overwhelming
response from carers that respite is required. The Association then tells
government that carers have identified respite as their priority need,
indeed their research showed that 97% of carers who responded to the
questionnaire identified respite as what they needed most. New carer policy
and funding emanating from government reflects this advice with additional
dollars being made available for respite, thus ensuring continuity of
employment for service providers and a continuity of exploitation of family.
Of course, this is only hypothetical. It really couldn't be happening could
it?
Regards
Felicity
>Ph+ 61 2 9351 9509
>Fax+ 61 2 9351 9166
>E-mail [log in to unmask]
>
>Note: This is the e-mail address for my home as well
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>There is not one shred of evidence that supports the notion that life is
>serious.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|