Calling for the constitutional protection of the elderly

Prof. Des O’Neill’s Leas Cross report has finally been published, over a year after Prime Time Investigates uncovered the scandalous conditions at the “care” home.

RTÉ News says that the report levels criticism at every level of the system, from the staff and management of the infamous facility itself, all the way up to the HSE and Government. It is quite clear from the original PTI episode and this report that there is no reliable system for the regulation of care homes in this country and that basic levels of care seem to be largely optional, with less than a slap on the wrist for those unwilling to comply. Judging by last night’s episode of Prime Time the HSE has learned very little from its mistakes, re-registering a Rathfarnham care home six months after the Leas Cross revelations, despite years of negative audits as well as strongly worded warnings by inspectors and medical professionals not to do so. The nicey-nicey approach verbalised by Minister of State Seán Power seem to allow flagrant abuse of the system as long as a care home promises to do otherwise, and the upcoming bill seems to lack any provision to change this (see the PT episode linked for further information).

So as the Government gets all hot and bothered about giving constitutional protection to children in this country, why are the elderly once again being overlooked? The idea behind the Children’s referendum is to offer safety to the most vulnerable in our society and yet those equally or perhaps more vulnerable at the other end of the age scale go unnoticed.

The closest thing to a constitutional protection for the aged in Bunreacht na hÉireann comes in article 45.4.1, which states that “The State pledges itself to safeguard with especial care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged.” In other words, the State will provide some financial assistance to the aged, largely through pensions and care subvention.

Why does it not promise to protect the safety and dignity of those who have given so much to this country? Why does it not compel the state to ensure that their final years are as enjoyable and comfortable as possible? Why can’t it promise the people of this country that when they put their loved ones into care homes, as they often need to do, they will receive the same care and attention their families wish they were able to give themselves? Why is Mary Harney not being compelled by the constitution of this country to protect the elderly at every possibility? Perhaps Bertie could widen the net a little in next years referendum and offer protection to people at both the start and end of their lives; it’s not like it’s going to cost any extra to do this, because God forbid money is spent protecting this country’s citizens.

Perhaps we bloggers could start a campaign, lobby our TDs and get our voices heard in order to ensure that the upcoming referendum is not a wasted opportunity for the aged?