From Pamela Karimjee.
WHILE we are grateful for prescription charges having been dropped (although there are still prescribed items we need to buy frequently that are not on the list of free items), and more time allowed before the loss of benefits proposed for many people when the new Income Support system comes fully into being, it is only a reprieve.
What we need is for the present level of benefits to be maintained.
It has been said that it was to ensure a fairer distribution of the available money. I know quite a lot of ill people receiving benefits, and all of them are losing out under the new system. There may be some who are gaining, but I have not met one yet.
The whole way in which Income Support is assessed and administered alters the status of the invalid within the family group from one of fairly independent financial means to one of more financial dependence on the rest of the household, as the household is financially assessed as one entity.
This could mean the difference between, for instance, the family having holidays, or the children engaging in hobbies and school trips or accepting the care of an elderly relative.
Depending on the strength of relationship bonds and the total money available, this could cause resentment and create tensions in families, contributing in some cases to the invalid feeling that he or she is more of an unwelcome burden and becoming very unhappy and depressed.
Some families may abandon their responsibility for invalids, either neglecting them or sending them to live in a care home. We have heard on the news recently of how people are abandoning pets as they can no longer afford to keep them; the next step could be for their dependent relatives to be abandoned too.
The onus of care is being placed back on the family and away from the States. I think that the States should think ahead of the likely consequences and act in two ways to attempt to lessen future problems.
One way is to build more single disabled accommodation and care homes, as some families may be less likely to invite an ageing and/or disabled relative to live with them, knowing that by doing so benefits for them will be lost.
This is sad, as it means that instead of enjoying family life they will be isolated and need more care from the community.
Secondly, we could educate people to accept more responsibility for their elderly or disabled relatives and show them more respect, as in some other cultures. Perhaps this could be incorporated into the new citizenship classes in schools.
To sum up, losing this money is going to make a lot of difference to many people who are already in difficult situations.
The carer will find it difficult, if not impossible, to tell the invalid that he cannot have the support and activities which have made his limited life more bearable.
The carers will also have to do without the help they need. In our case, after my husband became ill, the Stroke Team taught me many coping strategies. If benefits are withdrawn, these will be impossible for me to follow, increasing stress for both of us and possibly the need for respite care. Some carers are also invalids themselves.
It has not been taken into consideration that living expenses are greater for an invalid than for a well person. 4 Le Bel Mourant,
Grande Route de St Martin,
St Saviour.
I have not met anyone better off under Income Support
From Pamela Karimjee.
WHILE we are grateful for prescription charges having been dropped (although there are still prescribed items we need to buy frequently that are not on the list of free items), and more time allowed before the loss of benefits proposed for many people when the new Income Support system comes fully into being, it is only a reprieve.
What we need is for the present level of benefits to be maintained.
It has been said that it was to ensure a fairer distribution of the available money. I know quite a lot of ill people receiving benefits, and all of them are losing out under the new system. There may be some who are gaining, but I have not met one yet.
The whole way in which Income Support is assessed and administered alters the status of the invalid within the family group from one of fairly independent financial means to one of more financial dependence on the rest of the household, as the household is financially assessed as one entity.
This could mean the difference between, for instance, the family having holidays, or the children engaging in hobbies and school trips or accepting the care of an elderly relative.
Depending on the strength of relationship bonds and the total money available, this could cause resentment and create tensions in families, contributing in some cases to the invalid feeling that he or she is more of an unwelcome burden and becoming very unhappy and depressed.
Some families may abandon their responsibility for invalids, either neglecting them or sending them to live in a care home. We have heard on the news recently of how people are abandoning pets as they can no longer afford to keep them; the next step could be for their dependent relatives to be abandoned too.
The onus of care is being placed back on the family and away from the States. I think that the States should think ahead of the likely consequences and act in two ways to attempt to lessen future problems.
One way is to build more single disabled accommodation and care homes, as some families may be less likely to invite an ageing and/or disabled relative to live with them, knowing that by doing so benefits for them will be lost.
This is sad, as it means that instead of enjoying family life they will be isolated and need more care from the community.
Secondly, we could educate people to accept more responsibility for their elderly or disabled relatives and show them more respect, as in some other cultures. Perhaps this could be incorporated into the new citizenship classes in schools.
To sum up, losing this money is going to make a lot of difference to many people who are already in difficult situations.
The carer will find it difficult, if not impossible, to tell the invalid that he cannot have the support and activities which have made his limited life more bearable.
The carers will also have to do without the help they need. In our case, after my husband became ill, the Stroke Team taught me many coping strategies. If benefits are withdrawn, these will be impossible for me to follow, increasing stress for both of us and possibly the need for respite care. Some carers are also invalids themselves.
It has not been taken into consideration that living expenses are greater for an invalid than for a well person.
4 Le Bel Mourant,
Grande Route de St Martin,
St Saviour.
Article posted on 21st July, 2008 - 3.00pm