INSUFFICIENT CARE

I have recently read a work entitled “Why Can’t You Hear Me”. It can be found at the following site and is well worth reading.

https://uk.jkp.com/products/why-cant-you-hear-me

It is not an easy read or should I say it is an easy read, as it is very well written, but it is not a comfortable read. It takes one into areas of life that make us uncomfortable. It calls into question just what we think about the very bedrock of our democratic society, the duty of care we have towards each other. That duty, allied to the rule of law, should be something solid on which individual citizens can rely. It is something that is tested every single day of our lives and is sadly, particularly at this point in time, quite fragile rather than the reliable concept it ought to be.

 

We rely on it to protect each other from harm. A manufacturer has a duty or care not to produce a product that can hurt people or cause injury. A restauranteur has a duty of care towards her customers not to served food that makes them sick. A householder has a duty of care not to let anything from his house cause damage or harm to his neighbours’ house. A doctor and her/his patients. These are all settled matters we accept and on which we rely. It is not so much a question of assigning blame; however, it enables us to remain civilised and accountable to one another. It allows us to compensate and be compensated for harm we may do or may be done to us. Yet, there are times when something happens, something apparently remote and tragic, whereby it is difficult to comprehend how it could have happened. It is then, when looking for answers, that our duty is most tested. It is then, when integrity most matters and when failures should be recognised and accepted.

 

In some instances, it is difficult to pinpoint one single incident, some action or failure to act, as being the cause of an accident. It is most likely that a multiplicity of circumstances will lead up to the event. Indeed, those circumstances may be remote, but they can be clarified by examination of just how closely they may be linked to the event in question. It is only by clarifying a situation that one can learn and see just how to prevent the event from occurring again. Therefore, in looking into the event, it is necessary to examine as much of the surrounding circumstances as possible, before deciding what is too remote to take into account. It is during that examination that the true test of integrity and honesty of those concerned is brought to light. It is then that the cracks and failures can be exposed. Whether it be lack of care, inattention, neglect, deliberate malfeasance or simple ignorance, it should come out in the end. That is at least what we hope.    

 

Yes, we are responsible for our own lives, our behaviour, our own actions and interactions with others, but there are times when things go awry, not necessarily through any fault of our own. The world can be a strange place. There are unfortunate people everywhere, some bad some good. This pandemic lockdown has unfortunately released some of the worst elements of society, as we have seen with the increased amounts of thievery, scams and deceptions being practiced, as well as an increase in domestic violence, general violence and mental illness.  It is a complex and mixed society, and, I believe, it is the case that the majority of us are unaffected by this underlying stratum of our society, but we have a duty of care to deal with and improve the lot of that, so called, lower level. We all have a duty of care.

 

Included in the mix are vulnerable people, who, through no fault of theirs, are unable to cope with the world as it is. They have the appearance of normality and superficially seem to be perfectly capable of coping. Despite these outward features, they find it impossible to find an equilibrium they so desperately need.  In one way or another their lives can spiral down to an unimageable and unbearable existence. It is not inappropriate to quote Jean Paul Sartre in this regard “L’enfer, c’est les autres”.  To have a vulnerability that remains unrecognised, and manifests itself in ways that do not, to the untrained eye, reveal the true nature of that vulnerability, must be devastating. It is often not even spotted by the trained eye. It can remain so for some considerable time. The vulnerable person does not know why they are as they are. They think of themselves as perfectly normal, or maybe just a bit different, but certainly not vulnerable. They do not understand, because they are not aware of their condition. If you are not aware, it is not easy to explain. That leads to frustration and a confusion as they do not understand why no one seems to understand them, hence the cry “Why can’t you hear me?” Is it any wonder that hell is other people?

 

If only there were fewer vulnerable people, because of poverty, illness, alcohol or drug dependent, homelessness, mentally challenged or a combination of all of the above, then our society might be easier to cope with; but the numbers are there, the reasons are mixed and the needs are many. Social services are well meaning, but social workers have too much to cope with. How can someone in a very crowded forest even recognise or differentiate one tree from another; so treating clients all the same seems fair, but is ineffectual, and leads to burn out and mistakes. It is the same with medical staff, counselling staff, lawyers, police, civil servants and most of the functionaries the vulnerable claimants come into contact with. Cool, impartial equality cannot take the place of real assessment, considered examination, and real dialogue, which is what we are meant to do. Some social and civic workers manage it, a great many do not. Again, the numbers and lack of resources make the engagement with the system, sporadic and unsatisfying.

 

One should read Andy and Amanda McCulloch’s account of the roller-coaster ride of their life with their vulnerable daughter Colette to truly understand the highs and lows of encounters with social services, banking services, medical services, legal services and share their frustrations, deep anger and hopes that somehow, she will have a life worth living. The system failed, in my view,  on a colossal level,  to provide sufficient duty of care, at least, not in the right place at the right time.

 

Well-meaning is not sufficient. You have to be efficient and effective. That requires the proper time, training, support, imagination and the ability to actually get something moving without the obstructions of jobs-worth executives. It is not a question of bending the rules, it is a question of dealing with a vulnerable situation. It is a matter of our duty of care to each other.