Healthcare provider’s explanation woeful

Re: Retiree loses all faith in care provider ( Standard, April 17). I find the attitude shown by Healthcare NZ in regard to the concerns raised by Eric Clarke to be extremely disrespectful.

Mr Clarke has expressed legitimate concern about having intimate procedures carried out by a young woman. If the tables were turned, and a young woman was embarrassed and uncomfortable about having an older male apply ointment to her genitals, I wonder if a similar dismissive response about not discriminating on age would prevail?

This is the same service provider that initially denied knowing about the relevance of amemorial tribute to Nathan Booker after his image was expunged from the mural that had been commissioned as a tribute to his life and as a reminder of the severe consequences of negligence.

Mr Clarke has significant health needs. Midcentral Health would dowell to review the return that the taxpayer is getting on the health dollar invested in Health Care NZ.

The care meted out to Mr Clarke would suggest that the public funding earmarked to meet the objectives of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000; especially the objective to provide the best care or support for those in need of services, would be better spent elsewhere.

Julie Hopcroft, Feilding