Thursday, 28th February 2008
Don’t ghettoise disabled persons
A friend in the caring professions who also has a physical disability has informed me about the grave concern and worry that is being felt by many in the local community of persons with disability. The cause of so much worry is a proposal that is being made in the electoral programme of the Labour Party.
I do not for a single moment doubt the genuine concern that the Labour Party delegates who voted for the electoral programme have for persons with disability. Dr Coleiro Preca, the Labour spokesperson on social solidarity, is well known for her care of all vulnerable persons. But nonetheless, the proposal of the Labour Party about persons with disability, instead of pointing towards a new beginning is a throwback to a past that by now should have been buried and best forgotten.
The Labour Party is promising that if it is in government it will carry out needed structural changes in St Luke’s Hospital so that parts of it will be used for persons with disability who cannot be cared for by members of their family.
The National Commission Persons with Disability has publicly declared its strong reservations about this proposal. The majority of the members of the Commission are persons with disability or parents of persons with disability. They have been showing their disagreement for the Labour proposal since 2006. In June of that year the Labour Party published a consultative document called “Poplu b’Sahhtu, Pajjiz b’Sahhtu.” The offending proposal was part of this document. The National Commission Persons with Disability make representations with the Labour Party to show its disapproval but its comments fell on deaf ears. The Labour Party decided to ignore the pleas of the Commission and go on with its plans and they are now part of its electoral programme. What is the point of holding consultations if you then ignore the opinion of the most important lobby on the subject in the country and when you fly in the face of best practices adopted in other countries?
On the other hand one notes that there are parents of some persons with disability who can be in favour the proposal of the Labour Party. They are genuinely worried that no one will care for their loved ones once they (the parents) pass away. But most probably this great fear that they have is not letting them see what is the best way forward for the best future of their loved ones. In such a situation it is understandable that security is placed before empowerment.
Experience, research and best practices all over show that the best future of persons with disability does not lie in initiatives that increase their dependence but in initiatives that empower them. For these last 20 years the Commission has been insisting that the institutionalisation of persons with disability is not the way of the future. The Commission has been lobbying all so that Dar tal-Providenza (which at the time it was set up showed the mind of a man with a great vision) and Mount Carmel would not be enlarged. The future for persons with disability lies in the expansion of community care, individualised and personalised services as well as the setting up of small communities.
The Church in Malta has taken note of the pleas of the Commission. The Dar tal-Providenza was not expanded and at least two small communities were set up at Zejtun (thanks to the generosity of Dun Ang Seychell) and B’Kara (thanks to the generosity of my ex-Latin teacher Canon Pirotta).
For fairness sake one has to point out that the Labour Party said that the modification of St Luke’s will take the form of residential units that will be like the other residential houses that already exist in the community.
On this point I make mine the comments of Rita and Kevin Vella from Mosta who wrote in The Times of February 11 on the subject: “Se we ask, why does it have to be at St. Luke’s? Is it so impossible to find other locations in the community where to open these houses?”
I appeal to the Labour Party to heed the advice that is being given by the National Commission for Persons with Disability and the Maltese Council of Disabled Persons and scrap its proposal about the institutionalisation of persons with disability.
“Move away from institutionalisation”Earlier this month the European Commission published a study called ‘Deinstitutionalisation and Community Living – Outcomes and Costs’. This study was carried out by the University of Kent (Tizard Centre) and the London School of Economics.
Introducing this study, Vladimír Špidla, EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities expressed her hope that the study will help Member States and stakeholders to transform services for disabled people from institutions to quality social services in the community.
The EU uses the European Social Fund (ESF) to help improve the life of disabled people. Among other things, the ESF supports projects to promote independent living, in particular community-based services for people with disabilities near their place of residence, including rural areas (for example through modernising systems and mechanisms especially staff training). It also supports replacement of existing closed institutions with quality services and housing within local communities (so-called 'de-institutionalisation').
The EU report says that services in the community need not be more expensive than institutional care once proper account has been taken of the needs of residents and the quality of care. The choice facing Member States is not therefore between inexpensive institutions and more expensive community services but between institutions that cost as much as community services to run but achieve poorer results, or services in the community that cost the same but do a better job.
Booooring
The ultimate insult that a journalist can receive is to be relegated to the position of a time keeper during a booooooooooring programme. I cannot believe my eyes when during the political broadcasts organised by the Broadcasting Authority I see well known journalists acting as time keepers and not as journalists. They manage a stop watch and smile while telling the speakers that their time is up. The ETC can provide better time keepers.
Journalists are there to question and challenge not to keep the time.
RSS
Comments
Why don't you stay out of politics !!!! If you have nothing better to do or you feel that there is no place for you to teach the word of God in malta why don't you join the missionaries!!
Dear Anthony Charles,
Can you tell me how many intellectual disabled persons pertain the MCoPD.
Unfortunately, Fr Joe Borg has built a partisan image during the past years on a number of instances, and no matter what you say, at least with a good portion of the Maltese population the equation is Fr Joe Borg = PN.
As far as I know it is the first time that Fr Joe Borg spoke on this subject. He said that he wrote because of number of disabled persons spoke to him on this issue of the Labour proposal. To compare the Labour proposal of building units within the St Luke’s Hospital grounds with Ghettos is simply political manipulation.
I say again, the Labour proposal will be there as an optional choice and if any disabled person or his family prefers Mt Carmel or SVPR for the proposed facility they will still have the choice to do so, but they have no right to object to other choices as other persons might prefer them. Pluralism does not only apply to Broadcasting. The more the merrier and the widest the choice the better.
The Labour proposal is another option to be made available.
What options are being offered by the other parties?
Maybe the long standing (at least 5 years) promise of Personal Assistance by PN, which I will be very glad if it comes feasible, but I have enough sense in my head to say that it is far fetched for the present.
I hope that there will be more options, such as Fostering of disabled persons, more community homes, initiatives to encourage Personal Assistants Scheme as has been used in the Scandinavian Countries and Germany. I will bless the day when we Maltese reach that level.
Yes, Don’t ghettoise disabled persons!
I insist that persons who are disabled by any means other than intellectual have a mind to think and a mouth to express themselves, and in most cases can look after themselves and decide for themselves. So much so that most of the organised bodies, including the KNPD, is formed and run by such persons.
Yes as I was a parent of a severly intellectual handicapped child, I know very well that had she survived and my family and I were not available to take care of her, the only places she would have ended are Dar tal-Providenza, Mount Carmel or SVPR.
As her parent, I would have preferred a place in line with what Labour is proposing to Mount Carmel and SVPR.
I ask you two simple questions:
1. What is your realistic alternative?
2. Are you against or in favour of Dar il-Providenza?
Maybe you are right that I got hot under the collar - this is because with your credentials, I have the right to suspect that your motives are partisan politics. No matter how much you try to convince otherwise you will not succeed.
I strongly believe that as a minister of God neither you nor any other priest should get involved with partisian politics no matter which side they are on.
Your mission is to show that God loves us all and he has no politics, colour, race, etc. In my opinion your CVs surely do not conform with this mission.
In actual fact what i did was to give a voice to the person with disability who spoke to me. I also tried to give a voice to the National Commission Persons with Disability and the Maltese Council for Disabled Persons. I repeated their arguments so the wrath of Mr Abela, in actual fact was addressed against these bodies. I served as a screen so that he could attack them.
His second intervention makes this very clear. In fact he is now openly attacking these two bodies.
It seems that his argument has now been narrowed only to persons who are severely mentally handicapped. Is he saying that the idea of institutionalising disabled persons a good idea only in the case of those severely intellectually handicapped? Is he saying that in all other cases the idea is a good one? Is he just saying that the idea is good because this is better than Mount Carmel? Given a chance would he opt for something different?
I would like him to clarify so that we can discuss without getting to hot under the collar - real or proverbial.
Who are the experts in the field of the severly intellectual handicapped?
I stand to disgaree with you to state that 'KNPD and MCoPD' are the experts as there is nobody in these bodies who is intellectually disabled or a parent of such a person.
It has to be the Socialist Party to look after the interest of the the people who have no say, severely intellectual persons do not have a vote and thus have no voice.. It is only their parents or carers in absence of parents who knows what's best for each particular individual. And that is why these parents and carers are very much worried that they know that it is a fact that these severly intellectual disbled persons will end up at Mt carmel or SVPR as they cannot speak for themselves.
Ideally, you should strive to have more iniatives as Dar Nazareth, Dar il-Wens, etc. In absence of such family-based homes which is the best option, the MLP proposal which is on line or even an improvement of Dar il-Providenza or Mt Carmel and SVPR?
Let's be faiur and honest and don't ploy politics in these matters. I will definetly respect different political opinions but mot their use in matters of severly intellectual persons.
Others are more severe, some people with severe to profound disabilities cannot even feed tthemselves. They live in the community because of the great love of their parents. The KNPD is aware of these cases and should cooperate with politicians to find a solution. I know that many parents are worried about what will happen to their children when they pass away. It's no use pretending these problems do not exist, and then sending these people to Mount Carmel or St.Vincent De Paul.
Jesus obliged us to take care of the homeless, the sick and the poor. (Speech on the mountain).
What Labour wants to ensure is that a disabled person who finish up with nobody to care for him will not end at Mount Carmel Hospital nor St Vincent the Paul, but a specially designed complex, including small apartments, with the necessary helping care fit for the specific disability.
If Fr Joe ever worked in this field he should know very well that there are many different types of disabilities, and their needs are very different from each other. The unit which the Labour is proposing will be ideal for persons with mental disablities who may be unable to live on their own and in some cases maybe also bed-ridden. In most of this cases the person himself will not be able to distinguish between St Luke's and his home, The obligation of the state is to make sure that he is cared for.
Fr Joe should tll us his alternative, maybe he will repeat the promise PN made five years ago that he wants that every disabled person will have a personal carer at his home. Very idealistic but far fetched. So much so, that in the last 5 years the PN did simply nothing about it.
Come on Fr Joe, you wrote the article not because you want to help the disabled but only to gain some support for your party.
If you want to help the disabled, folow suite of Dun Ang Seychell, Fr Charles Abela, Mons Azzopardi and those honest and dedicated clergymen who practice what they preach.
A shining example is Saint Paul's Missionary College where there are many of these students with difficulties and where also the majority of the school leavers succeed with flying colours and continue their education.
This gives a clear message to our children that no one should be marginalised or as Fr Joe said ghettoised .Today's trend is to help persons with difficulties live a 'normal' life like 'normal' people .