🧵So I've spoken to the family discussed in this post and it's worth explaining the terrible end of life predicaments some #LTC families are dealing with.
So this sweet resident was sent to ER with a life-threatening condition that was deemed palliative by attending hospital MD.
The family, who have had TERRIBLE experiences with their #ForProfit#LTC do not want their loved one to be sent back to that LTC to die in more neglect (obviously). They want them in a hospital, preferably in a palliative care wing where they can have better care provisioning.
Even the attending MD agreed. However, the 90+ year old #LTC resident (now hospital patient) has lived past the period the hospital staff thought he would (but he is still palliative, to be sure). Yet, this week's attending MD disagrees w/ initial MD for palliative placement.
Now the family is being told they have 2 options: 1. Go back to the #LTC (where he'll likely die in neglectful conditions or be sent back to ER to got through this process again)
OR: 2. Be sent to an #LTC potentially 100km away thnx to the horrid Bill 7 👇cbc.ca/news/canada/to…
The family just wants their loved one to stay in hospital where he can get the end of life care he deserves and won't get in #LTC.
Why do we do this to families during the hardest time of their life. Is not the loss of a parent HARD ENOUGH, @PaulCalandra@SylviaJonesMPP⁉️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵1/5. Because I studied this in my PhD., I shall expand on this for anyone who has yet to see the clear pattern here. This is all the result of the ONGOING REFUSAL TO ENUMARATE WOMEN'S WORK.
LTC. same problem.
NURSING. same problem.
CHILDCARE. same problem.
ALL OF THESE JOBS INVOLVE REPRODUCTIVE LABOUR THAT WAS ONCE CARRIED OUT FOR FREE, IN PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS BY WOMEN (when we weren't granted the ability to compete in the paid labour market).
3/5. All of these shortages we're seeing right now = the result of governments & private business refusing to provide safe working conditions & decent pay to work that is overrepresented by WOMEN.
🧵Previously, ALC patients chose 5 PREFERRED #LTC homes they would go to. Bill 7 works to enable a situation I describe below, where our most vulnerable can be charged US-style hospital fees for merely waiting for a safe and appropriate #LTC facility.
Before, you couldn't be forced to pay the UNINSURED hospital rate if you turned down an LTC that was not among your top 5.
Now, they're enabling hospitals to "continue the conversation" by effectively threatening to bankrupt them if they don't take the first bed available.
So they say there's "choice", but we all know threatening our most financially & medically vulnerable seniors (30.5% of which live in poverty in ON) w/ EXHORBITANT bills will force them to take the bad option presented to them simply because they cannot afford to wait it out.
One of your homes is now being placed under a MANDATORY MANAGEMENT ORDER (not the first time) for a LITANY of noncompliance's.
Here is that report for @CaressantL on McLaughlin Road in Lindsay. Why don't we start here?
Full report: publicreporting.ltchomes.net/en-ca/File.asp…
While we are at it @CaressantL, I sat in on a family council meeting for this home LAST NIGHT (I was invited and introduced myself and spoke to your management).
Let me tell you DIRECTLY that I was NONE TO IMPRESSED with the lack of urgency I took away from that meeting.
Families are scared and demand better and all I heard was excuses for the ongoing violations and serious outbreak currently underway!
WHO IS HANDLING YOUR IPAC BECAUSE ALL I AM HEARING HERE ARE PROBLEMS FROM FAMILIES?
RE: This article.
Nobody is arguing against paying the 62.00/day. What we are arguing against are the upwards of 1,800 DAILY RATES they can now be charged to ALC Patients. thestar.com/politics/provi… via @TorontoStar
APART FROM THE REPUGNANT AND WHOLLY DISCRIMINATORY REMOVAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO CONSENT, this is our VALID CONCERN:
"...the prospect of elderly patients being charged the full daily uninsured rate for a hospital bed — which can be as much as $1,500 or more"
They have ALWAYS been allowed to charge the co-payment (since 1996) and families HAPPILY PAY THAT to avoid being sent to an ABHORRENT HOME.
NOW, removing choice= easing ability to charge UNINSURED RATE.