When cost has to be a factor
THE story of Margaret McEwan (“A change like this increases risk of death”, The Herald, October 22) is a difficult one. At first sight everyone would want her to stay in the home where she has been for 18 years. From all I can see, the work that Ms Smith, her family, and the other carers have done has been remarkable.
However, the suggestion from some quarters seems to be that cost should not be a factor. Surely cost has to be one of the factors considered, albeit not the only one? If her present care set-up of three full-time staff costs some £73,000 compared to a care home perhaps costing £43,000, can we as a society afford to pay that much extra when there are so many other competing demands?
Many older people are desperate to move into a care home as their families cannot cope with caring or they are lonely living on their own. So often they are refused a place because of cost.
In many cases it will be cheaper to keep someone in their own home with a certain level of care being provided. But there does come a level of care required, especially if it is 24-hour care that is needed, when a care home is the better place.
Having myself worked for care homes in the past, I have seen many cases where the quality of life was greatly improved when someone went into a care home. Many get a whole new lease of life.
With an ageing population (which I am delighted we now have), cost surely has to be a factor in all such decisions. We cannot afford to do all we would like to do. It is too easy for a politician to stand up in Parliament with a vulnerable constituent in the gallery and tug on the nation’s heartstrings. We see it often at Holyrood, with MSPs demanding the latest and most expensive drugs so as to gain short-term popularity with some voters.
But responsible politicians, social workers, and health staff do have to make difficult decisions at times. And, sadly, that decision sometimes has to be no. John Mason, MSP for Glasgow Shettleston, 1335 Gallowgate, Parkhead Cross, Glasgow.