The Royal College of Emergency Medicine has contradicted Matt Hancock’s suggestion that the four-hour target should be replaced, saying there was no evidence yet of a viable replacement.
The current debate over a Texas company’s “right” to allow anyone to download blueprints to its 3D-printed guns is following the same well-trodden terrain as every firearms fight for the past few decades: differing interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Cody Wilson, the founder of Defense Distributed and the creator of the first working plastic gun in 2013, argues it’s about every American’s right to bear arms. “I believe that I am championing the Second Amendment in the 21st century,” he told “CBS This Morning.”
On the other side are the federal judge who is temporarily blocking the release of the blueprints, the eight state attorneys general who sued Wilson’s company from putting the designs online and gun control advocates across the country who want the government to do more to regulate firearms.
This misses the point. Government regulation and the gun industry are not natural enemies. They have a historical synergy that long predates Supreme Court rulings on the constitutionality of gun control legislation. It was not until 1886 that the Supreme Court even addressed the federal government’s ability to regulate gun ownership. For most of the nation’s first century, the government perceived its constitutional duty as providing guns – not protecting an open-ended “right to bear arms.”
My research on the history of the government’s intervention in the arms industry suggests a return to its role as guarantor of the gun trade would allow it to do more to reduce gun violence and mass shootings without trampling on the Second Amendment.
Source: Print-your-own gun debate ignores how the US government long provided and regulated firearms : The Conversation
Ministers’ social care and welfare reforms represent a deliberately prejudiced, vicious attack on a significant minority of the population
A recent United Nations report on its inspection into the UK’s record on disabled people’s rights was described as a “17-page-long catalogue of shame” by one commentator, who wrote:
Over the past seven years, cuts to benefits, social care, the legal system and local authority funding have effectively put decades of slow, painful progress into reverse.
Cuts in social care funding have made a mockery of would-be progressive policies on personal budgets and direct payments. Cuts in day services and restrictions on access to freedom passes have marooned many disabled people behind their four walls.
We have also seen disabled students’ allowances cut; a reduction in funding of Access To Work, which made it possible for many disabled people to get into and stay in work; and greatly increased reporting of disability hate crime – including incidents against disabled children.
The chancellor, Philip Hammond, in his autumn budget, made no mention of social care; the Care and Support Alliance saying that the “government failed to recognise the immediate crisis in social care”.
The government’s latest proposals delaying a promised green paper on social care until next year don’t include any disabled people or organisations in the team of “expert advisers”.
Disabled people of working age won’t be addressed in the green paper and we can get some idea of what’s in ministerial minds from a recent social care debate in the House of Commons. Social care minister Jackie Doyle-Price repeatedly emphasised the part yet more welfare reform will play in the government’s future thinking for this group.
Over the past seven years, the government has not so much increasingly failed to secure disability rights under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities as appeared to attack those very rights.
Successive governments have denied this, but with suggestions that disabled people have died shortly after being identified as fit for work, or killed or contemplated killing themselves after the withdrawal of welfare benefits, it is difficult to see this as merely a matter of misguided policy or economic exigencies.
It is becoming increasingly difficult not to associate such catastrophic policies with something deeper, something more visceral. We have to ask why does this government and its recent predecessors seem so bent on harassing disabled people? Is there something about us they just can’t stomach?
The present government particularly has made cuts to social care and reforms to welfare benefits that – without exaggeration – can be said to have damaged and spoiled the lives of millions. We know that thousands of disabled people live in fear of the brown envelope through the door; that some have even starved to death after their benefits have been cut.
These are not isolated cases. They affect all groups: people with learning difficulties; people who are dying; those with major physical and sensory impairments; with painful and enervating long term conditions; with the most severe mental health problems.
Modern governments talk a lot about “evidence-based policy”, but evidence has highlighted the cruel, draconian effects of these social polices.
We need to look way beyond ideological discussions about whether or not policy is “fit for purpose”. Instead, we must ask where this apparent underlying loathing of large groups of people comes from. What is there about us as disabled people that prompts such extreme measures?
Of course we know that governments like ours clutch at a different rationale. Their attacks are not on disabled people per se, they say, but those pretending to be disabled, the “shirking” rather than the “striving” disabled people.
Sadly, it is disabled people indiscriminately – and those close to them – who are suffering appallingly through these measures, not some imagined cohort of con-people or impersonators.
The current direction of travel of social care and welfare reform doesn’t merely represent harsh policy or even reactionary ideology. Instead it is a deliberately prejudiced, vicious attack on a significant minority of the population.
Governments and policymakers haven’t caught up with the reality that medical advances and social and cultural changes mean that the nature of who we are as a population has changed. There are now many more disabled people. Making our lives increasingly difficult may kill some of us, but it won’t seriously change the maths.
The failure of policymakers is that so many disabled people still face appalling and increasing barriers to employment, education, training, family and social life. It’s not getting rid of us that welfare reform should be about, but about challenging and ending these attitudinal, institutional and cultural barriers. And to do this, this government needs to start very firmly with challenging itself and its ministers.
- Peter Beresford is emeritus professor of social policy at Brunel University London, professor of citizen participation at Essex University and co-chair of Shaping Our Lives
Source : Why is the government waging a war against disabled people? : The Guardian
Congress should pay attention to these four impartial ways to save lives and save money when discussing healthcare.
Autism champions around the city are being taught how to recognise the signs that someone may have the condition and how to handle challenging behaviour
social care network: adult social care hub Policy Personalisation Social care Older people Disability England
social care network: leadership, learning and development hub social care network: adult social care hub Regulation Policy Work practices Careers Care workers Social care Carers
Five years after Winterbourne View, Sir Stephen Bubb says a commissioner is needed to protect the rights of people with learning disabilities
Local authorities are letting vulnerable people slip through the net when giving advice about care
‘………………………..By Felicity Dormon and Patrick Hall
Scale also has a role to play. Health has a strong national and regional component, whereas social care focuses very much on the market within a council. And a third issue may be understanding of outcomes. More transparency in performance in health may mean more attention is paid to it. In social care, there has been very little information to judge quality of care on until recently.
The Five Year Forward View, devolution to city regions and the implementation of the Care Act dramatically changed the health and care landscape, and demand joined up thinking about how to improve quality. Where will the reverberations be heard from integrated provision, multi-speciality providers and local government run hospitals?
Health and social care can learn from each other. The focus on peer support and learning in social care could usefully be picked up by health, including support for commissioners. And in social care, more support for providers could allow them headspace to look beyond the day to day, and regional coordination could facilitate learning and spread of innovation. Some aspects are being explored, for instance through the recently announced pilot of peer reviews for Better Care Fund activities. It is important that the supportive stance of peer review is carried through to implementation.
Beyond mechanisms for improvement, the task of bringing together very different cultures should not be underestimated. Support for both those leading change and those providing care will make success much more likely. If we are serious about integration, we should confront and discuss our cultural assumptions about improvement at a national and local level, and take the best from health and care’s different approaches to supporting improvement.
- Felicity Dormon is senior policy fellow at the Health Foundation and Patrick Hall is practice development manager (policy) at the Social Care Institute for Excellence. …………’