understanding of the science and status of organic evolution. Warwick Don, Dunedin
THE MIDDLE OF THE END FOR ACC Since “The beginning of the end for ACC” (NZLawyer, issue 102, 28 November 2008), changes in public awareness about how ACC works and the legal options for those injured by accident has taken an immense step, direction undecided. ACC has also been subjected to a political change; elements all causing upheaval for the public as patient entitlements are rearranged. Currently at risk are the Woodhouse Principles, the foremost is the emphasis of financial direction being channelled away from rehabilitation and towards legal recourse, such as Formal Reviews and cases at all levels of the judicial system. Recent trends show Formal Reviews are being requested in rapidly ascending numbers by patients as their rehabilitation is stopped prior to reaching “rehabilitation to maximum practical level” by ACC clinical advisors (who do not see the patient). Citizens have exacted from the Courts affirmative results against ACC, winning on substantive matters that have considerable implications for all their fellows, such as Martin v ACC (7 August 2009, High Court, Wellington CIV 2008-485-2617, Justice Ronald Young). In Martin, the effect of Justice Ronald Young’s finding is that ACC’s employed assessors are not the sole arbiters of a patient’s health and welfare. Other expert medical opinion must be heard in any patient’s application for continued rehabilitation. Until this time, Ramsay v Accident Insurance Corporation (30 June 2006, High Court, Dunedin CIV 2005-412-795, Justice John Hansen) was the overriding case of precedence that acted as a counter to patients having recourse to all the medical information being considered in a legal fora. The effect of Martin means Primary Health Providers’ opinions will now be used with little impediment in evaluations as the clarification of law is administered. While this means the standard of opinion by a health provider may have to stand additional scrutiny of the law more frequently than in the past, it also alters profoundly the culture of ACC and the provider, as health professionals will not just have to treat patients, but return to the second value of the Hippocratic Oath and advocate for the patient on clinical matters. This may disturb some as the practical side becomes evident, but especially ACC as the perceived or real unilateral opinion of ACC’s assessors is put in perspective. Said Justice Young at [32]: “ To limit the appeal rights to the Review Officer and the District Court in this way would mean only a very narrow right of appeal and would effectively prohibit any appeal on the merits of the decision. This would leave the medical assessor’s opinion in the circumstances in an extremely powerful position.” The Barry Stewart case (R v Stewart [2009] NZCA 89), where an innocent man was jailed for so-called defrauding ACC also shows that justice under ACC has not been paramount. This credibility blow to ACC does not enhance its relationship with patients, nor does the potential compensation costs for this case and potential others create trust. At the Goddard Inquiry, ACC accepted physiotherapy submissions “that the patient comes first”, yet the ongoing legal cases belie this. Further historical cases linked to the failed Endorsed Provider Network experiment and precedent-setting hearings will modify 14 INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM October 2009
how a monopoly insurance company can do business in the future. Unless there is implementation of the ‘either/or’ factor, either litigation or rehabilitation, as espoused by Sir Owen Woodhouse, the “middle of the end of ACC” is facing New Zealand, as the ‘both’ factor is unsustainable at the contemporary rate. Malcolm Hood, manipulative physiotherapist
LIBERAL TRICKLEDOWN So, it seems that escalating violence among very young children is causing shock and horror among those who were not expecting it. Naturally, the same types, desperate for a scapegoat, immediately come to the simplistic conclusion that parents are to blame. However, “The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons” and ever since the mid 19th century advent of atheistic Marxism, generation after generation of parents and children alike have laboured under the unfolding curse of Left-wing “Liberalism”. Here, in this great, pandemic delusion, which, among its other sins, has obscured the true meaning of liberalism, lies the greater part of modern social ills. Together with a thousand other socially lethal mistakes that the “liberal” “progressives” continue to make is their endless campaign against any form of censorship - as a matter of “principle”. “We are adults” they reason, “We are free ; who should say what we can, or cannot, read, see, or do ? Yes, but children are not adults, and they too have been increasingly subjected, via every possible means of modern communication and “entertainment” to the most graphic depictions of violence and gratuitous sensuality - to mention but two examples of fashionable present-day decadence. “As the twig is bent so the tree grows”. How many people understand that to accurately portray evil is to evoke it ? Malcolm Muggeridge, among other prophetic voices, called ( pseudo ) liberalism the “death wish” of modern society. He was right. Colin Rawle, Dunedin
GOVERNMENT DISOBEDIENCE Last month, August 2009, the ‘government’ of New Zealand, aided and abetted by its ‘parliament’, rebelled against the people of New Zealand. The ‘government’ and the ‘parliament’ wilfully disobeyed the clearly expressed will of the people and refused to reverse out legislation that they had been told in opinion poll after opinion poll and by an overwhelming number of submissions to one of their ‘select committees’, was vehemently opposed by some 80% of the people of New Zealand. The progress of New Zealand society towards democracy has been seriously damaged by this event, and the refusal of the 122 citizens who claim membership of their ‘parliament’ to obey the will of over 1,200,000 citizens in the referendum represents a tragic ‘coup’ against the democratic aspirations of our nation. The same people who denounce what has happened in Fiji see nothing wrong in openly defying the mass of the people of this country. So what are we to do? Dominic Baron, Upper Hutt