Page 1 of 1
Unjust policy at IH.......
Posted: Nov 8th, 2018, 10:39 am
by dle
https://www.castanet.net/news/Letters/2 ... licy-at-IHWhat is missing from this letter? If this is true, why in the blue blazes then are we paying for brand new drug permitting homes & care for junkies? Addiction has been labelled a disease. Dementia is a disease. Alcoholism has been labelled a disease.
In this case it reads that the person suffers from dementia (a disease) caused by alcoholism (another disease). What is the difference between that and a junkie who is addicted (a disease)?
If they won't pay for this person then I don't suppose we should have to pay for the others either.....
Re: Unjust policy at IH.......
Posted: Nov 8th, 2018, 5:50 pm
by Centurion
Governments are running out of money. Gotta make cutbacks somewhere.
Re: Unjust policy at IH.......
Posted: Nov 8th, 2018, 6:54 pm
by twobits
dle wrote:https://www.castanet.net/news/Letters/241422/Unjust-policy-at-IH
What is missing from this letter? If this is true, why in the blue blazes then are we paying for brand new drug permitting homes & care for junkies? Addiction has been labelled a disease. Dementia is a disease. Alcoholism has been labelled a disease.
In this case it reads that the person suffers from dementia (a disease) caused by alcoholism (another disease). What is the difference between that and a junkie who is addicted (a disease)?
If they won't pay for this person then I don't suppose we should have to pay for the others either.....
I cannot believe this letter is divulging all the facts. There is more to this story without a doubt.
If there were any truth to the withholding of medical intervention for addiction issues.....why have we got an army of civil servants and volunteers loaded up with Narcan nasal spray doses that cost 40 to 60 bucks a dose, and usually 2 doses used to make sure that they stay alive until the next addiction crave.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- ... -1.3675243
Re: Unjust policy at IH.......
Posted: Nov 8th, 2018, 7:00 pm
by fluffy
dle wrote:What is missing from this letter?
Good question. Need more details to address this question. The author obviously has a bone to pick with IH but the wording of the letter sounds a lot more like an attempt to stir up emotion than anything else. Basic information required would be the type of care the "patient" (or those acting on the patient's behalf) is seeking, the particular IH policy in question, and perhaps most importantly, whether or not the patient would present a danger to others in a given facility.