Ambulansen används som en privat säkerhetsråd, kyrka bryr sig inte, vårdpersonal är maffian... Detta är vad som skrivs om oss på mitt jobb.. igen igen borde man bli sur men det är så sjukt påhittat så man vet inte vad man ska säga.. :-) Men om nån vill läsa då är detta lite ur en blogg som är till för att hitta på saker om oss... trevlig läsning... :-) Kindness, cruelty and everything in between MENUSkip to content Corruption Today I want to provide a little context to my chronicle. Amid the most spectacular mountainous landscape, this village lies far north, about 140km from the nearest town, and 240km from the nearest large town. The village’s population is about 400-500. Most people were born and bred here, went to the local school, and returned here to work and raise their families. Everyone has family in the village. Very recently, a small immigrant population has moved into the village, to mixed response. The walls and trees have eyes and ears here. One can say something to another person in the privacy of one’s own home, and before the day is out, the entire village knows all the details. People gossip idly about the suspicious deaths, mysterious assaults, questionable job losses, but nobody will publicly or formally divulge information. Intimidation into silence has even driven some to suicide. 90% of the people here are hardworking, honest and community-minded, generous with their time and skills. A small minority, as is unfortunately so often the case, maintain a reign of terror. This is a very strong accusation, but what I see here falls nothing short of a mafia-run society. The village is not alone in this; the entire municipality, in all its functions, is driven by a small number of individuals who are ambitious beyond concern for anyone else, manipulative and controlling. I can back this up with a number of experiences, though I have only been here for six weeks. Let me begin with the core dilemma, my reason for being here. A stroke victim is denied care for her indescribably painful affliction, one of the most common ailments in the so-called developed world today. Leaving aside the complications of family involved in this decision, the fact that the healthcare and judicial system both overlook this basic fact beggars belief. When Y had her stroke (In June 2012), a referral to rehabilitation was promised for her by the doctor in ICU, as is standard practice. Something then happened during Y’s second week in ICU- X was not present but his sister was- with the result that this decision was changed. Access to the records has always been denied. What happened? Y was moved to The Facility (in July 2012) against her will, a place which could not accommodate her needs, and on top of this, had a dreadful reputation for mistreatment. This was arranged by her husband and daughter, who claimed that Y could not speak for herself. Much later, these two claimed that by suffering a stroke, Y now had irreparable brain damage and could not recover even with rehabilitation. This was accepted and declared legally valid by the district court, based on false evidence provided by an unscrupulous GP. (This doctor had initially also written Y a referral for rehabilitation, but changed his mind when Z ‘clarified’ the situation to him. A second opinion was sought from a crony in the next village. Neither doctor has sufficient neurological expertise to assess this or make any such claim.) Z was much later (between September 2012 and February 2013) officially appointed as Y’s legal spokesperson, in a highly questionable manoeuvre approved by the municipally-controlled, though theoretically independent, Guardian. When Y first arrived at The Facility (in July 2012), her daughter ensured the staff would lock Y in her room in the dark, alone, forced to stay in bed, claiming she needed ‘rest’ in her weak state. X heard about this treatment from another resident’s visiting daughter, and saw it with his own eyes later that month. He questioned this treatment and the fact that Y was being denied post-stroke care. His sister reiterated that the treatment was necessary, for Y to ‘scream out her anxieties’, to come to terms with her new post-stroke state, to process her internal impressions. Realising his concerns were falling on deaf ears, X consulted a local man who was regarded as knowledgeable; he was well-known as a very influential man in village life. This man then went to The Facility and reinforced Z’s affirmation to the residents who agreed with X, that Y should not have rehabilitation. Because this man has power in this small village, The Facility used his command as support for their actions. When one resident continued to object despite intimidation from Z, she was declared mentally unstable and therefore unreliable. X continued to object. Some villagers whispered support, but were too intimidated to ever do this publicly; they knew there would be severe consequences. Even friends of X from outside the locality or country would visit, witness the abuse, and express outrage, but were quickly intimidated into silence or disengagement. Thus the intimidators gradually isolated X, in the hopes of forcing him to abandon the pursuit of justice. X refused to give up. He was denied medical attention when he fell seriously ill, forcing him to travel 800km for urgent care. Even then, so far from the municipality, he was refused the standard tests by the doctor he visited, whose husband coincidentally was from the village; later she was more helpful, but encouraged X not to get too involved in Y’s case ‘for the sake of his health’. He was directly threatened by the municipality mayor, that he and Y were not safe if any of this abuse was brought out publicly. At farcical ‘care planning’ meetings at The Facility, he is publicly or privately harassed; falsely accused of abuse, mental instability, dishonesty, manipulation; and threatened. The local ambulance crew, dubiously claiming to be answerable to the facility manager, is used as her personal security service, forcing X to leave the building, or refusing him entry, when he tries to visit his mother. Villagers advise X not to report to the local police, as any report made against the municipality will endanger Y, him and anyone supporting him. The local church sees the abuse and looks the other way. Y is a devout practising Christian, pained more by this corruption of the church she has actively attended all her life than any of the other authorities. Even the local newspaper, cronies of the municipality mayor, ran an article on how X was a threat in the workplace for the poor staff at The Facility. It is not just locally that the abuse is denied. Nationally, the health and social care inspectorate claim to fulfil their role by relaying reports of mistreatment directly back to the accused facility. The purpose of this, that the mistreatment will be rectified, assumes the honesty of the facility, and their will to improve the experience of their residents. It does not account for a facility carrying out abuse intentionally, and has no structure in place to deal with such a case. The national police refuse to help, claiming that local police must be involved first if a case is to proceed to the next level. There is no structure in place to deal with an ‘inefficient’ (their term) local police force who ignore crimes reported if these are against their cronies, the municipal politicians. Government ministers I have contacted pass the buck, from minister for justice, to minister for health, to minister for the elderly, back to local politicians, and all deny that their department has any role in the matter. Leading medical experts in the field claim to support X’s pursuit, and agree that Y’s circumstances are extremely life-threatening, but they all refuse to say anything publicly, citing as reason that they will lose their job. So the whole healthcare profession does not allow peer criticism for improvement of service, or simply for prevention of mistreatment and murder. There is no independent ombudsman to report to (only the health and social care inspectorate I first mentioned), unlike any other country, as far as I am aware. Nobody could have imagined how long this would take, or what hardships suffered, for an aim that seems legally and to all human senses straightforward: seeking appropriate care for a common affliction. Harassment has taken its toll on X’s and Y’s physical and emotional fortitude, understandably; Z and X’s sister have used this to claim mental instability on the part of X and Y, as suits their self-centred goals. The battle which ought not ever even be necessary is not yet won. Every day, the victim, Y, is still in the same predicament. Every day, new ways are found by her antagonists to thwart her chances to recover or to have a decent life. Every day, X wakes up knowing he needs and wants to help Y have the basic quality of life any human deserves, and that in this absurd situation, that involves fighting long and hard. Orka du läsa så här långt. Bra gjort... :-) / nicklas
Posted on: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:03:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015