A day or so ago I did a bit about the questions that were
raised (in my mind) as I read three separate and seeming unrelated articles. All
three articles had to do with the lack of supports for people who have unique needs.
There is no doubt there is a sufficient level of expertise within our communities
to develop the range of support programs that are needed to support all
individuals who face special challenges. "However at some point someone
needs to ask the question: should we do it? And if the answer is yes, then the
second question needs to be why".
When in the early 1970s, at a variety of centres in Canada,
people started to have a serious conversation about closing institutions and
supporting everyone in the community, there were a number of assumptions made.
One assumption was that it would be cheaper in the long run to close down the
large facilities and to support those individuals in their home communities; a second
was that those communities had the capacity to provide those supports and a
third was that the individuals who were repatriated back to the community would
have significantly better lives. Those assumptions
were made with no documentation, no scientific proof, no research. The truth
was so self-evident that there was virtually no debate allowed. People who
disagreed with the concept of de-institutionalization were at best just wrong
and at worst discrimitory, uncaring and possibly dangerous people. I don't
remember anyone asking the question if there was a limit in terms of costs or
the communities' capacities. The only
"proof" anyone had that de-institutionalization was a good thing were
the anecdotal stories told by a number of people as they travelled from
conference to conference, training session to training session.
What is perhaps more concerning is that to the best of my
knowledge - no one is yet questioning those assumptions. I think professionals are too afraid to ask
the question: is the amount of money and support available from the public
purse bottomless? Is there a limit to how much we are willing to spend? Governments,
of course, know the answer which is why they continually tweak the system trying
to find ways of delivering ever more complex support systems with less money.
Of course no minister of the government or senior civil servant will say "there
is no more money - we can't help anymore".
While I recognize that the deeper the pot is, the more
likely it is that people will demand even more supports and services - I think
the pot should be near bottomless. I find it absurd that we live in a country
where on one hand we give legal acknowledgement to the rights of all people and
then do little to ensure that some of those people have the skills and the
opportunities to access those rights. We give lip service to the concept that
the community can and should support all of its citizens but have continually
refused to fund those communities to an adequate level. We ask more of parents,
schools and others than we ever have before - but available resources never
match the need.
If our governments are unable to provide sufficient fund to
ensure that parents are not forced to sell their home to provide supportive accommodation
for their son or that people who live with mental health problems don't develop
more problems because of the lack of appropriate and available programs or that
those who want to and have the capacity to excel in post secondary can't - then
the government should say so. And they should say why.
Those who continually argue that we are paying too much tax
need to be part of the conversation. They need to sit across from the table
with those parents or that young person who can't get support and say " we
don't want to pay for it anymore". It is time we stopped blaming the
faceless bureaucrats and the elected politicians for the inadequacy of
services. Maybe it is time we ask the question we should have asked over 40 years ago: how much are you willing to
pay to support everyone in your community?
No comments:
Post a Comment