Read the article here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Minister Bartolucci is quoted in the article as saying "he has received praise from Sudbury doctors for the strides his government has made in addressing the bed crisis". I am not a doctor, merely a voter, but I am not rushing to offer praise.
The Minister's comment implies that he is satisfied with the efforts his government has made with respect to the crisis around long term care beds. I will only be satisfied when the Ministry publicly identifies the total number of long term care patients in the area including those in all the hospital sites, nursing homes and on waiting lists; projects the growth of this segment of our population; and presents a concrete strategy on how all these individuals are to be accommodated in a timely manner in facilities outside our primary care hospital.
The citizens in need of long term care who have contributed to the province's well-being for many years, as well as the users of local hospital services who are now suffering delays in timely treatment, deserve no less in our government operated health care system.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Re: Doctors Rail Against Memorial Closure - January 17, 2010
Read the articles here and here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published January 20, 2011 as Letter of the Day)
For the second time in two days, you have run a story dealing with the impending closure of the SRH Memorial Site. Both articles highlight concerns from citizens and doctors about the negative ramifications of this move. I note that the new ALC beds available in the city can barely accommodate the Memorial residents, leaving a large number of individuals still in the main hospital and on waiting lists.
We have been classed as being in crisis with respect to ALC patients for many years. I would like to remind the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care that, by their very name, this ball is in their court. The government has assumed total responsibility for health care, going so far as to restrict doctors who work outside their system. Why then should they be able to pass the buck on long term care to their puppet LHIN's and the community?
Since we still don't have the capacity for all the ALC patients even with the new beds, the rational decision would be to keep the Memorial Site open until every person requiring long term care is accommodated outside the one-site hospital. While not perfect, opinions are that the Memorial Site it is substantially less costly and qualitatively preferable to the new hospital. In addition, it would be freed up to provide the services it was intended to with less waiting and crowding.
I hear optimistic words from government and hospital administrators. They have been saying the same thing for years. Will the situation actually improve by the time I cast my ballot in the fall provincial election? If the Memorial closes, I sincerely doubt it. I am as mad as hell now and will be doubly so by then. I ask the Ontario government to please stop nibbling at the problem and passing the buck. Step up and face it head on.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published January 20, 2011 as Letter of the Day)
For the second time in two days, you have run a story dealing with the impending closure of the SRH Memorial Site. Both articles highlight concerns from citizens and doctors about the negative ramifications of this move. I note that the new ALC beds available in the city can barely accommodate the Memorial residents, leaving a large number of individuals still in the main hospital and on waiting lists.
We have been classed as being in crisis with respect to ALC patients for many years. I would like to remind the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care that, by their very name, this ball is in their court. The government has assumed total responsibility for health care, going so far as to restrict doctors who work outside their system. Why then should they be able to pass the buck on long term care to their puppet LHIN's and the community?
Since we still don't have the capacity for all the ALC patients even with the new beds, the rational decision would be to keep the Memorial Site open until every person requiring long term care is accommodated outside the one-site hospital. While not perfect, opinions are that the Memorial Site it is substantially less costly and qualitatively preferable to the new hospital. In addition, it would be freed up to provide the services it was intended to with less waiting and crowding.
I hear optimistic words from government and hospital administrators. They have been saying the same thing for years. Will the situation actually improve by the time I cast my ballot in the fall provincial election? If the Memorial closes, I sincerely doubt it. I am as mad as hell now and will be doubly so by then. I ask the Ontario government to please stop nibbling at the problem and passing the buck. Step up and face it head on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
