Mixed-sex - no thanks.

In 21st century Britain, where few children share a bedroom with their siblings and many homes have as many bathrooms as bedrooms, it is a terrible indictment that our 'world class healthcare' - much praised by the Labour government - should insist that sick, incapacitated and/or terminally ill people are forced into wards alongside total strangers, sometimes alongside strangers of the opposite sex.

Labour promised these mixed-sex wards would be closed but, as with many of their manifesto promises, it was nothing more than empty words. Let's hope the current lot will make it happen, but Mrs R has a feeling they'll be up against very important hospital administrators who want to retain control of their empires irrespective of the needs, or wishes, of their patients.

"What's wrong with mixed-sex hospital wards?" ... is the title of this CiF piece. The comments are, as usual, quite revealing and seem to indicate clear differences of opinion - possibly separating those who have been in-patients and those who've never been hospitalised.

Mrs R has experienced in-patient care in a mixed-sex ward, and it was horrible. She was the only female in an eight-bed area/bay. Despite pleas from both her and the rest of her family it's where she had to stay because the powers-that-be said there were no other available beds. Mrs R is more than a little convinced that her wish desperate need to escape led to her being discharged too early - swiftly followed by emergency readmission (to a different hospital further from home) less than 48 hours later.

Although Mrs R has no medical training whatsoever she is fairly sure that men and women deal with illness and incapacity differently. She does know that, if we're taken ill and taken away from our immediate family, it's bad enough having to share a room with a load of strangers, let alone total strangers of the opposite sex - with the illusion of privacy being provided only by a flimsy and rather grubby curtain with a lower edge no nearer the floor than the average kneecap.

One of the men in this particular mixed ward was an absolute gent - but was it fair that he felt the need to try to be 'decent' (in word and deed) in front of a woman who was in an adjacent bed? Was it reasonable for that long-retired man to have to sleep in the same room as Mrs Rigby, and have to discuss his medical problems with staff knowing she could hear every single word?

The other occupants of the ward? Well, umm, the least said about them the better! Man-to-man conversations are sometimes obviously very, err, mannish, and aren't really the sort of thing many women want (or need) to listen to. Oh, and there was the one who thought using the ward's communal washbasin was a clever trick, because it saved him having to walk along the corridor. The nurses never noticed, and nor did the cleaner who gave the sink a cursory wipe once a day.

These wards might have been a clever idea, once, but they were never the right thing to do. They might have saved a bit of space, the same as open-plan offices, but in the long run Mrs R is convinced that they compromise patient care and, in some cases, delay recovery.

So, she wishes the government the very best of luck in their plans to get rid of mixed-sex wards - by the end of the year.

....

Ovarian Cancer

Mrs Rigby heard a radio appeal made by Nigel Havers on behalf of Ovarian Cancer Action, of which he is a patron. He became a patron of the charity after his wife, Polly, was diagnosed with the disease/condition.

Some years ago we lost one of the Rigbys to ovarian cancer. Since then we've all been quite a bit more aware of the condition, aware that there may be a genetic link, and all too well aware that it can be almost silent until it's done its' worst.

What Mrs Rigby didn't realise until she heard the broadcast is that survival rates in UK put us at the bottom of the list for developed countries.

You can listen to the Appeal on BBC iPlayer by visiting the Radio 4 Appeal website at www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qnc7

It seems so terrible that millions are spent on employing more NHS administrators than medical staff, fortunes were spent on flu medication that wasn't used. Anybody can get medical treatment, no matter where in the world they come from, but to save a bit of cash British patients can be turned away by the NHS for having the audacity to have a single private consultation.

All this, and all those promises from our politicians, but none of them seems to mention the relatively small amount of public money that's directed towards cancer research. Funding is mostly down to the charities - real charities that is, whilst the fake ones get their coffers filled so they can continue to trot out their fake stats to suit somebody's personal agenda.

Mrs Rigby isn't going to specifically ask anybody to make a donation, because she knows that for many people money is a bit tight just now and there are so many worthy charities out there. But, if you do have a few spare pennies or maybe see a street collection, please don't pass it by. You never know, it could help somebody dear to you.

....

Labour's diagnostic leafletting campaign.

Mrs Rigby's reaction to the latest distasteful vote-weaning ploy by Labour is one of absolute disgust and contempt. Prodicus has a more direct use of language.

They have sent postcards to cancer sufferers, telling them that if the Tories win the election they might die - but Labour says it will make sure people see a specialist within 2 weeks of a GP referral.

Their campaign has been so carefully worked out that, according to Dizzy, "one of the people that received the mailshot did so whilst her 50 neighbours sharing the postcode did not."

Let Mrs Rigby tell you a story, about a female member of the Rigby family who had a terrible Christmas a few years ago.

She went to her GP with a breast lump. The GP assured the lady that she would be seen by a specialist within two weeks, because that was the target time.

Did it happen?

No!

It didn't happen because it was almost Christmas and the hospital department closed down from just before Christmas until after New Year. It was over five weeks before she saw a professional other than her GP. The lump, fortunately, turned out to be a non-malignant cyst.

So, when a Labour politician tells you there is a 'guarantee' to see a consultant within two weeks ask them if this applies to all hospitals, and all departments at all times of the year - because from the Rigby's experience it doesn't.

It doesn't apply if you're admitted as an emergency on a Friday afternoon, after all the administrators have gone home for the weekend, and it doesn't apply if you need to see a consultant when the administrators close a department for a public holiday.

Hospital administrators can close down a department if they want to, and without any comeback at all. They can do this because they themselves never come face to face with a patient, never see the anguish and torment their policies cause, they are faceless, uncaring, soulless, number-crunching, target hunting, bureaucrats - nothing more.

Oh, and Labour's response to being asked about this postcard campaign?

"The Labour Party would never specifically target any material at people suffering from a medical condition," a spokesman said.

Huh!

They've got a very peculiar way of not doing things, and they've got a funny way of not using confidential medical records too.

....

Coming soon, to a hospital near you.

From  here

"..... in the middle of the night I was transferred to a storeroom off the main ward because they hadn't got enough beds. It was like a broom cupboard."

The room was so small that

When she was seen by the consultant, he had to squeeze in with two other doctors and Mrs McKeown's daughter Dr Helena McKeown, a GP who is also chairman of the community care committee at the British Medical Association.

' The consultant didn't seem surprised, it seemed to happen regularly,' said Mrs McKeown

Unfortunately

'I had nurses coming in all the time to pick up the supplies and they were very good, but as I wasn't on the proper ward I missed out on some of the rounds for meals and medication.

Which might go some way to explaining why people are leaving hospital malnourished.

Actually, let's backtrack a bit

Mrs McKeown's daughter Dr Helena McKeown, a GP who is also chairman of the community care committee at the British Medical Association

So she wasn't able to use her job, to 'pull rank', to make sure their own mother was treated on a proper ward - that's a rare thing these days, and means there's not much hope for the rest of us.

'It's extraordinary that patients have to be looked after in a cupboard because the hospital doesn't have enough beds.'

No, it's not really 'extraordinary' that there aren't enough beds - they have to balance the books. They have to pay the rent ...

The £229million Norwich hospital, opened in 2001, pays an annual rent of £40million a year.

Figures show the NHS will pay out £63billion for privately financed hospitals - £52billion more than they are worth.

... and they have to pay wages of all those hospital administrators (from John Ward in Medway)

"In 1948, when the NHS was formed, there were 480,000 beds and 350,000 staff.

By 2002, there were 186,000 beds and 882,000 staff.

As of September 2008, there are 160,000 beds and 1,368,200 staff."

....

Number 10 closed for business?

From the Times, dated 6th December and reporting an event on 2nd September. Mrs R has no idea why it took them so long to publish the details, maybe all eyes are meant to be on Copenhagen and they thought nobody would notice.

Gordon Brown was snubbed by badly injured Afghan veterans when they closed curtains round their beds during a hospital visit and refused to speak to him.

More than half the soldiers being treated at the Selly Oak hospital ward in Birmingham either asked for the curtains to be closed or deliberately avoided the prime minister, according to several of those present.

The soldiers, who have sustained some of the worst injuries seen in Afghanistan, described his visit as “opportunistic” and a “waste of time”.

Furious about equipment shortages and poor compensation for their injuries, one soldier said: “It is almost as if we are the product of an unwanted affair ... he has done nothing for us.”

The article continues

Sapper Matthew Weston, 20, is one of the most seriously injured soldiers to have survived. He lost both legs and his right arm when a bomb exploded on a dirt track outside Sangin.

He said: “I didn’t want to speak to him, I didn’t want to waste my time talking to someone who was just trying to make themselves look good. I spent the day with my family instead.

“Half the lads didn’t want to speak to him and those that did pretty much blamed him for everything. Many of the lads just closed their curtains and hid themselves away.

“I met Prince Charles and Sir Richard Dannatt [when they visited Selly Oak]. I have respect for them. Prince Charles spoke to me for two hours. I really didn’t want to speak to Gordon Brown.”

More straight talking ...

Another soldier, who lost his right leg after being caught in a mine blast in Afghanistan, said that more than two-thirds of the 25 soldiers on the ward closed their curtains. He, however, decided to speak to Brown.

“I wanted to find out how the guy’s head worked,” he said. “I was interested in what he had made of his trip to Afghanistan and what he had learnt from it.

“I feel that even if someone is a moron, he should have the opportunity to defend his moronity. [His response] all seemed rather textbook and not from the heart.

“It is quite obvious to anyone that Brown is not concerned, it is almost as if we [the soldiers] are the product of an unwanted affair.

“The straight fact is this: we don’t like the man, he has done nothing for us and continues to kick us in the teeth over equipment and compensation.”

So what did Mr Brown say about his visit? Did he mention increased compensation? Did he heck!

Here you go!

Two days after his visit to Selly Oak, Brown paid tribute to injured soldiers during a speech in London. He said: “There is nothing more heartbreaking than, as I did this week, meeting a teenager who has lost a leg.”

So he didn't say he would throw money at the problem, didn't say government would provide either additional military resources or an urgent injection of cash to back up the charitable donations that Help for Heroes receives and spends on Headley Court. He said nothing about matching monies raised by limbless soldiers who do things like climb Kilimanjaro so their mates can get treatment if, and when, they're seriously injured. Nothing about pumping public finance to help fund the urgently needed extension.

Zero - zilch - just a, "Look what I've seen", a bit like a child talking about visiting Disneyland. Yet this same government can send millions overseas as an example of the country's largesse.

Maybe the soldiers' behaviour is rooted in the government's failure to acknowledge and act on the High Court ruling that said, as reported in the Guardian in April 2008

Sending British soldiers out on duty with defective equipment may breach their human rights, the high court ruled today.

In a potentially significant verdict for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr Justice Collins ruled that a soldier "does not lose all protection simply because he is in hostile territory carrying out dangerous operations".

In another blow to the government, he rejected an attempt by the defence secretary, Des Browne, to stop coroners using phrases such as "serious failure" in inquests concerning troops who died on active service. Browne had argued this might prejudice subsequent civil action.

The judgement – which the Ministry of Defence said it would appeal – raises the possibility that families of soldiers killed on active service could sue the government for compensation.

The MoD did, of course, appeal and lost, as reported in May 2009

Deploying British troops on battlefield operations with inadequate or defective equipment could breach their human rights, senior judges ruled today, opening the way for potentially huge compensation claims from bereaved families.

Dismissing arguments by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the court of appeal backed last year's high court ruling that sending a soldier out on patrol or into battle with defective equipment could constitute a breach of article 2 of the European convention on human rights, which enshrines the right to life.

and more

Three appeal judges, headed by the master of the rolls, Sir Anthony Clark, said the defence secretary had conceded before the hearing that soldiers who died on a UK base, such as Smith, were covered by human rights laws.

"It seems to us to make no sense to hold that there is a distinction between a person inside and outside of premises controlled by the UK," the judges said.

"If in a British base, why not in a British army vehicle? If in a vehicle, why not when a soldier gets out of the vehicle?"

The judges noted that soldiers were subject to British military, criminal and civil laws, no matter where they were.

"Soldiers serve abroad as a result of, and pursuant to, the exercise of UK jurisdiction over them.

"Thus the legality of their presence and of their actions depends on their being subject to UK jurisdiction and complying with UK law."

Mrs Rigby can understand why the soldiers in Selly Oak were reluctant to speak to their Prime Minister, because it would seem that it was his policies as Chancellor that led to serious cost cutting which now means that soldiers are expected to walk across an areas that are likely to have been mined because there is not enough equipment for them to travel in either wheeled transport or in helicopters.

And meanwhile some nasty little thugs are let loose because the Judge thought their 9 month sentence was too harsh, and an HBOS executive would like £600,000 compensation after being taken to a lap-dancing club.

Civilian MoD staff, who have already received whopping bonuses (whilst soldiers are short of equipment due to funding restrictions) are to be awarded the Operational Service Medal for duty in Afghanistan (interesting to note the ratings of comments left on this story) ... and a Falklands Veteran sells his MM after his security company employers refused to keep his job open while he had surgery to remove an Argentine bullet and pieces of shrapnel from his hip.

Today also marks a sad day because another soldier has died in Afghanistan. It is the hundredth death this year and brings the total of lives lost in that country to 247.

Maybe all this is why the Telegraph is showing a picture of the door of Number 10 with a notice that says

Door Out of
use

Please use
No. 11 entrance

Party broadcasts.

Mrs Rigby and her family have watched, with interest, the latest video offering from the Labour Party. She thinks it's a Party Political Broadcast in advance of the European elections, although she isn't altogether sure because she didn't hear the word "Europe" mentioned, not once.

She's interested too in the way it concentrates on horrible things Mr Cameron will do - as if the speakers have a crystal ball. Mrs R didn't know he was standing for a seat in Europe, she thought he was happy enough here in UK.

She thinks the broadcast is all a bit odd, not only because David Cameron is just one person, but also because she knows there are lots of representatives of other parties standing for election to the European Parliament. She thought Labour would be hoping to trounce them all.

Anyhow, Mrs R was interested in what was said, because she has experience of some of the things the broadcast mentions.

1) "David Cameron would love to see people like me on the dole"
Well, OK, Mrs R wouldn't mind that actually.

When Mrs R lost her job she couldn't sign for anything because a) she is married b) her husband is in work c) Mr and Mrs R have been prudent and put a tiny bit of money into savings and d) she lost her job for the "wrong reason".

2) "David Cameron would cut support for families under real pressure in this recession"
Mrs R's family hasn't seen any support for families under "real" pressure in this recession, so she doesn't think there's much support to be cut!

Her own family hasn't seen any reduction in their living costs - in fact they've gone up because the house needs to be heated during the day. She hasn't seen any reduction in essential transport costs. She hasn't seen any reduction in food costs. What she has seen, with increases in fuel duty filtering outwards, is an increase in the cost of almost every single thing the Rigby family touches.

Mrs R knows families who are battling, unsuccessfully, with the system to get some help with their mortgage interest. She read somewhere or other that only one family in the whole country had made a successful claim since the scheme was set up, unfortunately she can't find the reference now.

3) "If David Cameron had been in power I wouldn't have an extra £60, a free TV license and a free bus pass."
Mrs R isn't old enough to qualify for any of these, but she has relatives and friends who do.

Almost without exception they quickly worked out that £60 a year is a teeny bit more than £1 a week, an insignificant amount in "real terms" when a load of bread costs more than £1. Those that don't have televisions don't benefit from the free license. Those who live in areas where public transport is poor, erratic or non-existent cannot benefit from a free bus pass.

All would have preferred to see their pension increased by a sum equivalent to the cost of the TV license and free bus pass, so they could choose for themselves where to spend this extra money; so they could choose whether or not to buy a television license; and maybe choose whether to use a bus or, in many cases, contribute towards somebody else's petrol or share a taxi with a neighbour so they can do their grocery shopping.

Has nobody in the Labour Party, suffering from arthritis or a gammy leg, ever tried to get onto a bus with a wheeled shopping trolley and a couple of shopping bags filled with unwieldy things like toilet rolls?

4) "David Cameron would scrap the right for every patient to see a cancer specialist within 2 weeks."
No, sorry, it doesn't even apply now.

If you go to your GP with a "scare" and it happens to be just before a public holiday - when an outpatients department could be closed for as long as two weeks due to staff holidays - you wait longer. Mrs R knows this from experience, and it resulted in a truly ghastly Christmas for all concerned.

5) "David Cameron would cut £160 million from crime fighting budgets right now, that is the equivalent of 3,500 Police Officers"
Maybe it is the "equivalent of 3,500 Police Officers", but it doesn't need to be.

Earlier this week the Chief Constable of Essex said he could save money AND increase manning by making small savings. Mrs R commented on it here.

She and her family, their friends and neighbours wouldn't notice if the Police budget was cut, because their local police station is closed most of the time. One early morning Mrs R tried to speak to the Police and found the station doors firmly locked shut. A telephone, in a box on the wall outside - that should have connected her to the "control room" - had been vandalised. She tried again when she got home, but the person on the other end didn't even know where Mrs R was, and wanted detailed directions. This sort of thing doesn't inspire confidence, and is possibly why some crime statistics are down - it's too hard for some people to report a problem.

The only uniformed people the Rigby family do see are called "Civilian Enforcement Officers", who give out fines for parking and littering, they aren't allowed to do anything else.

6) "Mr Cameron would give £200 to £300 to millionaires"
Really?

Mr Cameron would personally open public coffers and hand out that much money to people who are already "rich"? - To living people who've either worked damned hard all their lives, not spent their money and invested it in businesses etc.. Does this mean he'd hand over even more cash to professional politicians, entertainers or footballers?

No, on balance Mrs R thinks not. She thinks this is about Inheritance Tax, and is nothing about giving money to anybody, it's about not taking it from them.

Inheritance Tax is about taking money from the estates of people who have died. From the financial leavings of people who have paid taxes - on income, as National Insurance and property/car/contents insurance, in local community charges, on property transactions, on consumer goods - and they'll have done this all their lives, rarely if ever making a claim or asking for anything back from the state.

This is a tax that doesn't only apply to "millionaires" - it applies to ordinary families who happen to be dealing with the estate of a relative who happened to own a property, a property whose value may have risen in their lifetime simply due to rising prices. This horrible tax applies as much to the working person who scrimped and saved to buy their rented home, and who have beggared themselves to maintain it in their declining years, as to those who were born to well-off parents.

This tax is applied to the estates of those people who may have struggled to retain some vestige in independence in their later years, who resisted the need to sell their home to pay for care - an iniquitous thing, not done in Scotland where elderly care is free.

Mrs R thinks this is a punitive tax, with levels set deliberately low so that it captures the life savings of almost anybody who has been careful throughout their life and whose home has a residual value, often due to no more than a geographical or demographic accident.

So, that's what Mrs Rigby thinks about the video.

Even if all these claims were true, Mrs Rigby wants to know what these issues are to do with Europe.

Europe doesn't set the levels of UK unemployment benefit or taxation. Europe doesn't set the cost of UK television licenses, public transport strategies or fuel duties. Europe doesn't set the price for a UK television license, nor does it set the access standards for our healthcare. Europe doesn't set the UK Police budgets, and it doesn't dictate the levels of UK Inheritance Tax.

Last time Mrs R looked, all these things were dictated by her own government, with details decided either by small committees or following discussion within Parliament at Westminster, Brussels has nothing to do with these matters.

So, Mrs Rigby would like somebody who knows more about these things than she does to, please, tell her precisely what this broadcast has to do with the European Elections.