| Author |
Message |
Rui Le Couteur Esteves
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 03:17 pm: |   |
I’M sorry, have I missed something?
Is there a blackout on? Are the Nazis back? Because I thought I read something about bonfires being banned.
I am incredulous, my blood is boiling.
I am sick and tired of being told by the health fascists, most of whom have been in Guernsey for five minutes, where and when I can light a bonfire, light a cigarette or have a barbecue.
Lighting a bonfire is a Guernseyman’s tradition and right. How dare you even consider suggesting banning it. Just go away and tend your clinical houses and lily-white hands.
RUI LE COUTEUR ESTEVES |
Clemente Ferrer
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 04:09 pm: | |
THE main problems that concern child obesity are cardiovascular and medical.
Nonetheless, an even greater dilemma exists, cancer. According to a published study by Cell Magazine4, overweightness acts as a promoter of tumours in general and in the liver in particular.
The children of today will live for a fewer amount of years and with a worse quality of life than did their grandparents, due to the problematic consequences derived from obesity and passivity - according to the president of the Organising Committee of the European Society Congress of Endocrinology and Nutrition.
Within the last 10 years, child obesity has doubled, reaching 13.9%. Also, 30% of obese children will be obese by adulthood.
The habitual commodity of leaving children in front of the television, so they do not annoy too much, does not do them any favour for their health at all. Two New Zealand scientists have demonstrated that watching too much television during infancy increases the possibilities of becoming more directly obese than through plain bad nutrition or by not doing physical exercise.
Forty-one per cent of people who are overweight at the age of 26 coincide with those who spent more hours of their infancy in front of a television screen.
The United States' Centre for Consumer Freedom has began a campaign against overweight under the motto of 'obesity: epidemic or exaggeration?', which pretends to negate the obvious in the country with the fattest people in the world. The journal of the medical college pointed out that obesity was the second cause of death in the country.
Eroski, the distribution group, has launched a campaign against overweightness in collaboration with four associations related to health and healthy food. Obesity is a serious problem to health in a lot of developed countries due to their incidence and the conditioning of health spending. It is estimated that around 13% of the population between the ages of 25 and 60 is obese.
The percentages of child and juvenile obesity are even more worrisome. Almost 24% of the population between the ages of two and 24 is obese, and 26.3% suffers from overweight. (Translated by Gianna A. Sanchez-Moretti). 'The best condiment for food is hunger,' said Ciceron.
CLEMENTE FERRER,
clementeferrer3@g mail.com |
Jon Beausire
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 02:16 pm: | |
Thank you for giving me the opportunity on behalf of the St John Ambulance & Rescue Service to reply to your correspondent's letter. While I am not able to comment on individual patients, I can confirm that I do not have a record of a complaint or correspondence from any person on this matter and I would ask your correspondent to contact me directly so that I am able to address their concerns.
I would, however, take this opportunity to confirm to your readers that the ambulance subscription scheme is open all year round with the following benefits and restrictions.
Benefits of membership:
Members of the scheme are not charged should they need treatment by ambulance service staff or transfer by ambulance vehicle in Guernsey for the following:
(a) in the event of an injury, sudden serious illness, urgent maternity or medical collapse or
(b) under the direct instructions of a health care professional where patients are unfit to travel by any other means for surgical, medical, radiology or physiotherapy treatment.
Where patients do not meet the conditions in (b), they will be subject to normal charges for ambulance transfers regardless of their membership of the scheme.
Restrictions:
There is no limit to the number of emergency responses or journeys, and no age limit for subscribers. However, subscribers cannot request an ambulance just because they are members. The fact that someone needs to go for medical treatment to a hospital or other centre does not necessarily mean they require an ambulance vehicle, and except for emergencies, we respond when a health care professional decides that the patient's journey is necessary for medical treatment and that their condition makes them unfit to travel by other means - calls must come from a health care professional or someone acting on their behalf.
The service is also able to provide private ambulance transfers for patients who are not members of the ambulance subscription scheme at a charge to the user.
The St John Ambulance & Rescue Service receives an annual grant from the States of Guernsey in consideration of providing statutory ambulance services for the island. The annual grant covers approximately 70% of the costs of providing the services specified in a service level agreement with the States of Guernsey's Health and Social Services Department. The remaining costs are provided by a combination of charges levied to users of the service, income from an ambulance subscription scheme and a health care equipment centre, and donations from the public.
Services that are not in the service level agreement, including the provision of paramedics and rescue teams such as cliff/ inshore rescue and the marine ambulance, are funded solely from donations and bequests to the service. The annual grant from the States of Guernsey cannot be used for these services, as they are not included in the service level agreement.
As I said before, I am not able to comment on an individual case, and I would therefore urge your correspondent to contact me directly (tel. 725211) so that I can address their concerns.
Jon Beausire,
Chief ambulance officer,
St John Ambulance and Rescue Service |
Steve Moss
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 02:14 pm: | |
UNTIL recently I have always had a great admiration for Guernsey's Ambulance & Rescue Service. Myself and my family have renewed subscriptions year after year with very little use of the ambulance service. Recent events make me begin to wonder about value for money.
My father, Joe Moss, unfortunately suffering from Alzheimer's, resides in the Duchess of Kent nursing home. Largely immobile, he and we rely on supposedly caring medical services available in the community, as more and more people will increasingly do in the future. Joe has a hearing disability as a result of injuries on HMS Ajax during WW2 that destroyed some of the nerve endings in his ears.
In an attempt to treat this disability he has special electronic hearing aids, only available from outside the island, but supported by a visiting audio specialist occasionally. One such occasion on 15 June called for more than we have previously managed to get him transported by car. Slow moving and tiring quickly, we can only now transport him in a wheelchair, which calls for specialist vehicles. It appears that the Duchess of Kent nursing home cannot arrange this. Moreover, requesting transport from St John's on our ambulance insurance was also turned down. Even a request from a GP did not help.
Our only course was to hire a wheelchair-capable taxi and assist the move manually. This was provided by a very helpful driver from ACE Taxis at a cost comparable with ambulance insurance. St John's has decreed this is not medical?
Anybody who has experienced hearing loss, let alone additional disabilities, may be able to describe the devastating effect this can have. Many of us approaching twilight years may indeed have to ponder about a caring community, indeed an appropriate ambulance service.
STEVE MOSS. |
Phillip Morgan
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 02:25 pm: | |
HAS my memory failed me? Wasn't it just a few years ago that the Guernsey Press reported that islanders enjoyed a life expectancy rate that was among the highest (if not the highest) in the British Isles?
Yet in Friday's paper you reported that the 2008 Guernsey Healthy Lifestyle Survey says a lot of us are stressed out, the majority of us are overweight, many of us are functioning alcoholics and, by the way, apparently some of us can't even pass a cigarette display in our local shop without fancying a fag.
So what has changed in the intervening period? Has the Guernsey lifestyle deteriorated so much that we are all heading for a much earlier grave? Personally, I don't think so and I'd like the results of the research to be verified by an experienced, independent market research company. Only then should we be satisfied that the report provides a true reflection of the health of Guernsey society.
From my perspective as a newsagent, the claim that only 16% of islanders now smoke seems very suspicious, which is what has led me to question the whole report. My own sales figures do not appear to support this claim. Moreover, it was only last December that Customs said the extra revenue they made from seizures of contraband cigarettes mitigated figures showing that tobacco consumption in the island had fallen. In other words, if my interpretation is correct, either the same number of people are smoking, or the remaining smokers are smoking many more cigarettes.
But my argument is not about smoking levels. It's about the way such dubious survey results are used by HSSD's Health Promotion Unit. No doubt they will use the statistics in this report to justify some more of their pet policy objectives.
My experience over the past year leading the 'Save Our Shops' campaign has shown me that the Health Promotion Unit plays fast and loose with statistics to achieve their sometimes misguided objectives, such as their proposal to ban tobacco displays. As I have said on many occasions, their motto seems to be, 'don't let the facts get in the way of a good story'.
In business we are taught to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. It seems to me that the opposite is true in HSSD.
But then, creating fear is a great way to get their own way.
PHILLIP MORGAN. |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 02:12 pm: | |
I HAVE just read with interest a letter in the Guernsey Press of Monday 7 June concerning the high turnover of doctors at the Castel Hospital.
As with your reader, I too am unfortunate enough to be suffering with depression (which started 14 years ago with post-natal with my second daughter). For the past 11 years I have first-hand experience of being an outpatient at the Castel and when my depression took a massive turn for the worse in March this year, I was admitted to the Castel Hospital as an inpatient for a month.
Unlike your reader, I have been really lucky with the level and continuity of care I have received. The first consultant who was put in charge of my care 11 years ago left fairly soon after I was referred and the consultant who took over my care was Dr Elmubarak. The level of care he has given, not only to me but the support shown to my husband, has been unbelievable. On quite a few occasions, I have required an urgent appointment and Dr Elmubarak’s secretary Chris (a fantastic woman who has sadly recently moved on to pastures new) always ensured that I was seen within an hour.
When I was admitted to Albecq Ward, the same level of care experienced in the outpatient clinic filtered right through to the nursing staff on the ward.
Maybe I’m just fortunate and I’ve been ‘in the right place at the right time’, I don’t know, but I’m so grateful that I’ve got Dr Elmubarak looking after me. All the doctors, nurses and clerical staff that I’ve had the pleasure to meet have been incredible and I’d like to say a big thank you.
Name and address withheld. |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 02:20 pm: | |
WITH regard to a letter in the Guernsey Press of 7 June which raises concern regarding staffing within the Castel Hospital, I have experience of the situation as I came to the island to work with HSSD, not the Castel Hospital. Same problems, different hospital.
Several years ago I rented property in Scotland, a three-bedroom bungalow with large gardens and around a quarter of an acre of land. £500 per calendar month, roughly the same as nursing staff are charged for rooms at John Henry Court.
I also had a mortgage for little more on a large property.
Why do nursing and medical staff stay here when for often less cash each month they could purchase property in the UK?
I also know of people being given assistance with private rental for a period of time.
When the timespan expires, rather than continue with this assistance, HSSD finance are happy to okay the recruitment and retention of a replacement staff member at almost £18,000, advertising the post for months in some cases.
I know of one position which has been vacant for a year at least.
Travel and hotel for interview, removal costs and then rental allowances for up to five years, when for a fraction of this cost the original postholder would probably stay, ensuring continuity of patient care plus bonds built with other staff and patients' relatives.
Healthcare is not something which can be done on the cheap.
You presently have a service far better than most UK NHS trusts.
It needs to be looked after, not threatened by the money men and number crunchers.
Dave Jones has in the past stated that HSSD recruitment and retention problems are not affected by the housing licence system.
I think he needs to go and speak to nurses at the PEH, King Edward and Castel Hospital plus all the community units for learning disabled.
Perhaps then he would be able, if not willing, to lift his head from the sand.
Name and address withheld. |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2010 - 03:28 pm: | |
COSTS could be cut enormously if mental health doctors at the Castel Hospital would stay for more than either months or a year or two instead of the short-term substitutes.
I have heard rumours of the people at the top upsetting the staff. That's the reason why good doctors have left. The sorry outcome is that this has been going on for years and it is the patients that suffer.
I speak from my own experience. I am an outpatient and have seen a total of approximately five or more different doctors in six or seven years. One doctor who was 'standing in' for someone on leave actually issued me with the totally wrong prescription because he had been given an old file. Does anyone know how dangerous this is?
One other 'stand in' doctor took me off all medication and my regular doctor was fuming when he got back as this actually hindered my progress so badly I ended up in the dreaded Castel Hospital where I was placed in my room with an anorexic and a heroin addict, so for someone with deep depression this was the worst environment to be in.
Luckily, I have not had to return. I believe things have improved but not regarding the retention of staff. It may be an idea to ask departing staff for their reasons by someone outside of the health services. This might reveal a common problem and so we could get this terrible situation sorted and save money in the long term.
Name and address withheld. |
Matt Waterman
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 02:27 pm: | |
GUERNSEY is not the only place where health budgets seem to have got everyone in a flap. Not surprising, really, given that it's being ill which puts material values into perspective. It's just a shame that some have quite short memories after the illnesses have passed.
While it's a fair bet that any proper investigation into health spending and associated resources would include revelations of incompetence, bad luck and maybe a dash of skulduggery here and there, I think much of what we are seeing is down to the relentless greed and pursuit of growth which has been prevalent over the last couple of decades.
For example, I hear this week that locally doctors are no longer allowed to prescribe Omega 3. Instead, they must prescribe statins. Being cynical, this could be down to pharmaceutical corporates throwing their weight about at political level, but the reason being given is that statins are cheaper and this is an HSSD measure to reduce spending.
Unlike Omega 3, however, statins cause side-effects, so surely in the longer term the indirect costs of their prescription will exceed the cost of continuing with Omega 3. And if the seas hadn't been overfished in order to give the consumer cheap prices (it was revealed two weeks ago that since 1910, the number of fish in British waters has declined by a staggering 94%) Omega 3 would surely be a lot cheaper now.
So while I welcome the move to re-examine the role of the OUR, I am concerned that the States will hold this debate away from the public after the informal agreement between Deputies McNulty-Bauer and Jones on the morning of the final day of the April States meeting, which resulted in views on the latter's requete not being aired. And this agreement came after various deputies had been telling us, at the same meeting, about introducing a culture of freedom of information.
Is it not important that we know which deputies support policies based around consumerism and which don't, which surely the OUR debate would have revealed? If we carry on with the 'consumer is king at all costs' attitude, and go on using food additives, adding phone masts, using mobile phones in non-emergency situations (there are a few interesting theories as to why mobiles are so cheap given the technology which is involved and that the scrap metal value, certainly of some of the earlier models, exceeds the price of some of the complete working items today), eating into oil reserves, increasing traffic, polluting and overpopulating, health spending will go through the roof.
Also, according to many well qualified to voice an opinion on the subject, GM foods and inoculations are being foisted upon us in the interest of corporate and government profit, rather than in the interest of health. Other policies, like not effectively addressing drug abuse and only giving lip service to issues like chemtrails and the savage declines in bee populations in the world, will come home to roost before too long.
And again, health will bear the brunt. And when concerns were raised over health issues surrounding the proposed Suez incinerator, one of the main counter arguments was: 'the power station pumps out 10 times the amount of dioxins that the incinerator will.' So, when are we going to start considering building a new power station?
It seems to me that there are a disproportionately high number of ill people within a mile radius of it but I have been unable to persuade our politicians to conduct a proper investigation.
It is unfortunate that most career politicians adopt a succession of 'four year' policies. We often hear at election time: 'look how spending on this issue has been cut during my last term in office.' A greater emphasis by individuals, businesses and governments on the indirect and long-term costs and effects of what we do today is long overdue.
MATT WATERMAN |
Wendy De Bourgonniere
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 02:10 pm: | |
I AM writing this letter after being asked by a friend whose daughter is so depressed about her situation she has resorted to overdosing (and I have been told by my friend I can say this).
She's been told by two doctors she needs a gastric bypass, and before anyone writes about dieting, this woman has tried but to no avail. Now she's been told she cannot have help to pay for this op by Social Security - why, when we, the public, have to pay for youngsters going off island for drug-related problems and all those who don't work but are parading around the Town with the latest mobile phones and the trendiest gear and the women who are having more than one abortion and not having to pay for them and also taxis being used to take people to pick up tablets at surgeries?
I've written on these subjects before - those who spend their days in pubs or on benches drinking. We, the hard-working public, are paying for this. If these idiots need an ambulance for being drunk, they don't have to pay, do they? Nor do they have to pay for visits to A&E, but we do.
We read about the overspend in the health service, all the ridiculous signposts at the PEH and the piece of glass in the new building garden. (I told them they could have panes of glass from my garden - it would have saved a lot of money, eh?) You are all very good at spending the taxpayers' money on totally irrelevant things, but when genuine requests are made by people who've worked hard all their lives, the doors are firmly shut.
You all need to get a grip now and start looking after those who've worked hard and paid their dues and stop pandering to the spongers, and I don't mean all people who need help are spongers. Everyone who reads this knows who I mean and who I'm talking about.
If any deputy would like to call or write to me I'd be grateful, and very grateful if some help could be given to my friend's daughter.
I just hope a bit of common-sense and compassion might come after this letter gets printed but, to be honest, I won't hold my breath.
WENDY DE BOURGONNIERE |
Deputy Mike Hadley
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 02:25 pm: | |
I AM surprised that you give such prominence to the views of former States member Bob Chilcott. He was president of the Board of Health 15 years ago at a time when staff were deeply unhappy with the way the health service was run.
As a recently retired GP and surgeon, I am confident that Deputy Adam has a much better grasp of the needs of the service.
I do agree with you when you said in the editorial on 10 May that there is an argument for an informed debate as to how much islanders are prepared to pay.
Deputy Adam and his board will have set the broad strategy for the Health and Social Services Department but will not have day-to-day knowledge of the expenditure of the service. Many of the running costs of the service are not known until well after the event.
For example, the bill for cancer drugs was £98,000 over budget.
This budget could only have been kept under control by denying life saving drugs to seriously ill islanders.
Since October, no new drugs for cancer treatment have been approved because of cost constraints.
This probably means some patients will have died earlier or had a poorer quality of life in their last few months as newer treatments may have been denied.
The new drugs that have not been approved are a ticking time bomb as many new drugs are about to come onto the market.
David Cameron has pledged to supply these in the UK. We normally follow their lead. If we do not it will mean that cancer patients will not live as long in Guernsey as they would in the UK.
The department has sent more people off-island than expected for heart operations. The brutal alternative would be to let them die.
There have been more than anticipated hip replacements.
Your paper was very quick to criticise HSSD when an operation for a patient was delayed. Keeping within budget for hip operations would have meant many more delays and you would then have had numerous stories of people suffering in pain.
The HSSD is also over budget on staff costs. I have frequently pointed out that the strict application of the housing law means that agency staff are employed at twice the cost of permanent staff.
The department has to tell much valued theatre nurses that their time is up and they will have to leave the island.
Though the Housing Department has become more accommodating in recent times, it is no surprise that there are 18 vacancies for theatre staff with one of the most senior theatre nurses about to leave the island.
I am told that the new chief officer of the Health and Social Services Department has a background as an accountant. I am sure that given
time he will bring the department within budget.
I hope that your paper will support the HSSD when the impact of rationing translates into fewer people being sent off-island for cardiac or complex orthopaedic operations.
I hope that you will also explain to readers that the HSSD has not got sufficient funds for new life saving treatments for cancers.
It is not true to say that healthcare is a bottomless pit. What is truer is that you get what you pay for. HSSD can deliver an excellent service if required to do so. They cannot do so without adequate funding.
The political board made a stupid mistake in not spelling out what under-funding of the service would mean.
You will now find out.
DEPUTY MIKE HADLEY. |
E. M. Thompson
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 07, 2010 - 02:30 pm: | |
I DO agree with Trevor Butcher in his letter to the Guernsey Press of 3 May.
I made a phone call at 3am on a Saturday to the surgery on call holiday time. I was in a lot of pain. All I wanted was advice on some medication. I had an answer from this doctor.
I had a bill for £18.45 for phone call and £36.85 consultation, which I think is disgusting just for advice, when my husband and myself have worked all our lives. What for? To be insulted in our old age. When you see the money that gets wasted in our little island and doctors can charge what they like.
E. M. THOMPSON (Mrs) |
Trevor Butcher
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2010 - 11:40 am: | |
ON THIS subject of 'equal rights', when you come to realise who gets these, I do not think it is me or the other people in Guernsey who try to help themselves in their life. I am well into my 70s and have had the misfortune to have been taken to the Princess Elizabeth Hospital A&E late one evening. I really did not want to go, but the ambulance staff said I really should, so I did. The doc saw me and gave me a pill, and sent me on my way, to walk home on my own over two miles. That wasn't too bad though. But I was really bad yesterday over it. The bill, that is - £146.55. This really hurt. Mind you, they have given me a deduction of £12, for what it doesn't say,
At no time was I informed there would be any charge to go to the PEH, nor when I got there was I informed. If I had been, I certainly would not have gone, as it wasn't an emergency or a necessity really, and please, don't come back with, 'you should have known'.
Back to this equal rights scenario. If we, my wife and I, had never helped myself in life, e.g. worked all my life, saved my well earned cash to pay for the things that I wanted, bought my house, paid for my holidays, paid the bills when they come in, etc, etc, the list goes on, I/we could have sat back and got all the help I/we would ever need, and more, given me by the Social Security, and the housing, and all the other States departments. I have heard it say to me that I have been lucky. Maybe there is a bit of luck (1%) - the other 99% is damn hard work and determination to get on in life and not to sponge off society. I could have spent all my wages on drink, drugs, wild women, fags, and everything else I couldn't really afford. I am shocked as to what Social Security pays for. Taxis, when the person could very well get a bus. Would they get a taxi if they had to pay themselves, and if they did, how could they afford it, being on benefit? These people think they have the God-given right to scrounge every penny they can out of society and have no conscience in doing so. I see in the shops, people sort of flashing their wallets and purses around at the till, with all these credits cards in, and a lot of them are on social. Could they tell me as to why they have more than one? I have only recently got my first one. I didn't want one, but have been forced into it, as last year I booked a hire car on the internet and paid for it by debit card. When I went to collect it, the assistant asked for my credit card. When I said I did not have one, he told me that I could not have the car until I gave him one. I said that I have already paid in full on my debit card - no, I had to give him a credit card before I could have the car. So I had to look around for someone who would hire me a car for cash. I did but, all in all, I have paid double for something because I did not have a credit card. Is that equal rights? A lot of these people living on social go on their hols each year, have got new or next-to-new cars, go to the pub each night, get highly intoxicated at the weekends, flash all the new things they buy, the list goes on. I am not at all jealous of them, I am angry as to how easy they can con society.
Back to this £146.55 bill. If I was one of the above, the States would pay it for me, no questions asked. In fact I don't think I would even have had the bill. I think it goes like this. I'm on social benefit. I have enquired to Social and been told I would have to go through a means test. Basically, if I have a few bob in the bank, they won't help, so it's back to square one. Don't help yourself, and get all the help you want from Social. This should be looked at - make them work for the handouts. I have heard the authority say we are not allowed, 'human rights'. That is NOT human or equal rights to me. It now appears that a boss cannot give an employee the sack if he/she is not suitable. He can't say, don't be late in the morning again or else, or, do that again and you're down the road, for the fear of being taken to court and paying large amounts of money.
What is this world coming to?
TREVOR BUTCHER,
t.butch@ cwgsy.net. |
Rodney A. E. Clough
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 19, 2010 - 02:49 pm: | |
AFTER reading your article reference the 30% shortfall in funds by the Ambulance Service (Guernsey Press, Monday 8 February) it seems to me that a way of helping to reduce the deficit would be to charge for all those calls that are proven to be time-wasters.
I well appreciate the service is there to save lives at all cost but there must be occasions where people abuse the system and as such I feel they should be charged the whole cost of any callout.
After all, the wasted call could be at the expense of a real emergency.
RODNEY A. E. CLOUGH |
R. S. Mauger
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - 04:30 pm: | |
IT WAS quite interesting to read your front-page story about our ambulance service struggling to survive on its allocation of grants and charity cash. Our ambulance service is probably one of the best in the UK and often wins awards also in competitions abroad.
What a difference to those up the road at the airport who only have to snap their fingers and all sorts of monies are allocated. The firemen at the airport have a responsible job and thank goodness they are not called on to do their duty, but it is such a frustration to see how one service is trying to survive and the other so easy.
There must be many other ways of supporting this great service, and I think maybe a good way is to introduce 'corporate support', i.e. companies provide a funding for their staff like the individual subscriptions. Many people cannot afford to subscribe for their families and this would be a good idea. This letter could now be open to other readers for their ideas.
R. S. MAUGER. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
