David and Rhonda Heather have a son who is deaf, almost blind, mentally retarded and cannot talk. He has congenital rubella syndrome. He was assessed by IHC as in the highest category of need ie 1:1 care. IHC receives $60,000 funding from government to pay for this service. The Heathers maintain he is not receiving it and were advocating for him at the social services select committee yesterday. IHC are very much at odds with the couple and "reserving the right to expel Richard from services". Here's the piece of the story that had me riled.
IHC has also refused to provide information about funding and services, saying they are accountable to the Ministry, not the client.
Were you ever under the impression that the IHC was a charitable organisation who might be answerable to its patrons? I collected for the IHC annually until I received a letter late last year saying they weren't running their usual house-to-house appeal. Perhaps they are now so much in the governments pocket they don't need to work at fundraising so hard.
But this is the price clients pay. According to Paul Hutchison, "There are so many parents who are too afraid to speak out for fear of what will happen to their children."
The dilemma is, is IHC another one to strike off the list of worthy causes? When the line between state-funded charity and privately-funded charity becomes blurred the problems begin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is how socialism grows.
Independant charities and organizations become beholden to the Government and in so doing individuals no longer feel the need to support them (or even become alienated from them as you appear to have done).
Sad and worthy cases cease to be the communities responsibility (ie. you and me) but the Governments.
Post a Comment