When is a right not a right? By David Tranter B.Ed (Oxon), B.A. (Canty). DSC Health Spokesman
W
hen is a Right not a Right?
According to the Health and Disability Commissioner's code of patients' rights: "Every provider must facilitate the fair, simple, speedy, and efficient resolution of complaints". This has to be the biggest joke of all the farcical "guarantees" which supposedly exist to protect the safety of public hospital patients in New Zealand. Judging by many cases known to me many complaints peter out simply because the trauma of the failed surgery is compounded by the evasive nature of the bureaucrats dealing with it. Patient frustration is increased by a succession of different DHB bureaucrats being involved with enquiries directed to specific officials being passed on to someone else.
comment was; "there is a high threshold for altering them", i.e. the patient's records. "High threshold"? It's another brick wall. The question arises as to how widespread are surgery disasters in public hospitals. Without the resources to coordinate information known to organisations and individuals concerned about these matters it is impossible to put definite figures on it but from my 24 years of various involvements with the advocacy side of the health system I believe it to be a huge issue. On the question of patient numbers one government report (November 2014) states 489 serious adverse events (excluding mental health and addictions services patients). Of these, 437 events were reported by DHBs and 52 by other health providers. This represents a 21 percent increase in the number of events reported by DHBs over the year 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013.
If the patient is not satisfied they have the "right" to take the matter up with the Ombudsman A former DHB doctor known to me but in my experience the Ombuds‐ When is a right not a right? is simply, has compiled records of many cases man's office is as ineffectual as the when it's interpreted by health known to him, including West Coast HDC. Added to which the Ombuds‐ bureaucrats and conniving politicians ones, where treatment has been man's office can only make abysmal including resulting in recommendations (if they ever do) unnecessary death and where the families have encountered which are not enforceable. The same applies to the Health & evasion and non‐communication from the authorities. One Disability Commissioner. West Coast contact tells me of four local patient disasters Quite simply, the patient protection provisions are paper known to them in the gynaecology area alone ‐ in addition to tigers in what is increasingly being seen by patient advocacy their own horrific experience. groups as a deliberate strategy of "cover‐up not follow‐up" And the bureaucrats' view of all this? A reply from when mistakes occur in public hospital surgery. Canterbury/West Coast DHB CEO David Meates included the Another alarming aspect of these matters is the confused statement, "Cases such as this are very rare and unusual". situation regarding patients' right to see their complete Rubbish! Given the experience of many people and groups hospital files. I was pleased to note the CDHB's chief medical advocating outside the "official" advocacy system for patients officer, Dr. Nigel Millar, state: “The patient owns their health the view that disastrous outcomes for patients are "very rare record, we have to get over ourselves. The patient owns the and unusual" is nothing less than the denial of reality. record to read, to annotate, to correct, to control”. When I It is time for a Minister of Health to end the approach put this to Dr. Millar recently he replied, "Should you ever be followed by Tony Ryall throughout his tenure of the office ‐ in Christchurch then I would be happy to meet and explain and now being replicated by the current Minister ‐ whereby, the context and exactly what I say on such matters". Which in Mr Ryall's words, it is "not appropriate" for the Minister of raises the obvious question as to why, when he's made such Health to become involved in the running of DHBs. So what is definite statements, he won't answer in writing to my "appropriate" for a Minister of Health? questioning him ‐ and given I live in Queensland he's on a Until there is strong direction from the top, treatment pretty safe wicket offering to meet me! tragedies will continue to be swept under the carpet by a The farce of patients "owning" their records is illustrated by system demonstrating the disastrous effects of bureaucrats the actions of the West Coast DHB who share the same CEO supplanting properly qualified people, i.e. the health as the CDHB. Mark Newsome of the West Coast DHB professionals, directing how hospitals should be run. informed me that under Rule 7 of the HDC Code; "People have a right to ask the agency to correct information about them, if they think it is wrong". Like Nigel Millar's statements that sounds promising ‐ until you read on: "If the agency does not want to correct the information, it does not usually have to. However, people can ask the agency to add their views about what the correct information is". So this means that the DHB view remains the "official" one with the patient's view merely added as an afterthought. Mr. Newsome's closing Guardian Political Review, Issue 66 - Page 9
I have twice seen (as a DHB member) excellent and experienced health professionals forced out of their positions by ill‐qualified management and board chairmen who simply rejected the views of the true experts.
The answer to the question in the title of this article, "When is a right not a right?" is simply, when it's interpreted by health bureaucrats and conniving politicians.