From: John Porter [mailto:john@balloons.plus.com]
Sent: 26 November 2011 14:19
To: Gibbens, Graham - MEM
Cc: Seal, Beverley - FSC OPPD; Terry, Margaret - FSC OPPD; Tidmarsh, Anne - FSC OPPD (Older People and Physical Disability); Wilson, Jerry - Multi Role (FSC SC (Strategic Commissioning)/FSC OPPD)
Subject: Mum
Dear Graham
Now that Bowles Lodge is closed and the legal challenge has ended there are some important things that I would like to say.
When I told mum that the case was over and that she would need to go to a new home she said "I want to go to sleep and never wake up". Yes, there was a huge lump in my throat, but with gentle assurance I think she has accepted it and I know the hospital staff are doing all they can to assure her and are keeping an eye on her in the wake of this critical news.
My top priority now is to ensure that mum is discharged from Tunbridge Wells Hospital to the best place possible that will meet her needs now and until the day she decides to leave her body on this beautiful planet of ours. I know this is KCC and the hospital's priority too. I give you my assurance that I will co-operate fully with hospital staff, Jerry Wilson, Margaret Terry and Beverley Seal in all the processes necessary to safeguard mum's life and her physical, psychological and spiritual health and well-being. I have looked at the KCC Care Directory and am unsure where to start so I will need some help that I know Jerry will provide as he has already offered it. The hospital medical and nursing team are also completing another INP and medical statement which will assist this process along with KCC's INP.
Although I have been robust in my opposition to the closure of Bowles Lodge, my comments had to be targeted at you Graham as the decision-maker. That was your unenviable role. I hope you did not think that any of it was personal. In fact I commend you for the professional way you discharged the duties of your position at every stage. This was evident by the way you conducted yourself at the six hour Cabinet Scrutiny Meeting in January; unlike the poor attitude demonstrated by some of your fellow councillors.
What often happens in legal cases like this is that when it is over no-one talks to each other. I find this approach to be wholly unsatisfactory and would like to re-open dialogue with you and others in 2012 about how we care for older people. I have always accepted the Council's arguments about changing demographics etc and also appreciate that though we may be living longer we are not necessarily staying healthy longer. This has major impacts on us as a society. As a purchaser and provider KCC is often caught in the middle and with the current financial cutbacks and government policy are sometimes forced into uncomfortable corners that make communication with the public rather fraught. The truth is that local authorities do have an important part to play but there are so many other factors in this ageing puzzle that are way beyond their influence. The last two years have taught me much and, as a consequence, I may have something to contribute to on-going conversations that you and others are bound to have. I don't believe that any experience is a waste! Now that the heat of the legal challenge has passed we can do this in a different atmosphere.
I also want to put firmly on record why I led the campaign against closure. I stood up after Margaret Howard's PowerPoint presentation in June 2010 because it seemed to me a crazy proposal for the residents - not for KCC - for you it makes sense. It is sad though that the very old have to make way for the younger elderly people. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". The audience was comprised of elderly and frail people and their bemused relatives. I gave a short speech, was applauded and suddenly became a reluctant leader of a campaign. Although there were some willing helpers I was doing it mostly on my own and doing a full-time job. I did some research and discovered that many people die prematurely when they are moved against their wills from homes that they love and are settled in. All the debates about PFI, other sites etc were red herrings so far as mum's future was concerned. Once you made your decision, union pressure evaporated, staff sought redeployment, families started to move their relatives fearing scarcity of places and so Bowles Lodge began to empty until Louise, that beautiful 102 year-old lady left last Thursday to fly to New Zealand and so it was sealed that mum would never return to the place she loved.
It is a terribly sad fact that at least six people died from the date the consultation started until the date you made your decision. Since you made your decision until now I know that another four former residents of Bowles Lodge have died within a few months of their transfer to new homes. I have complete confidence that all transfers were and will be, like in mum's case now, done with the utmost care, with skill and dignity and respect with a comprehensive care package put in place to minimise stated risks. I think what is in everyone's interests is to conduct some research into how all those transferred to new homes cope with the transfer and how long they live for with reference to their INPs so far as life expectancy can be judged. So my only reason for pursuing the legal route was driven by the Council's refusal to assess the risks to mum's life in September 2010 (Oliver Mills' letter). I understand why KCC refused because if an expert was able to demonstrate that moving mum could kill her prematurely it would put KCC in a very difficult position and make your decision an even more difficult one to make.
Once I had seen Dr Fox's (a specialist consultant in the psychiatry of old age) report that an involuntary transfer could shorten mum's life I had several very careful conversations with mum and she asked me do everything in my power so that she could stay and die at Bowles Lodge. Both Beverley and Margaret have witnessed this and I know will support me in saying that it was mum's wish I proceed with the legal case and that mum emphatically reemphasised this on more than one occasion. Indeed she did so on BBC and Meridian TV. I could never ignore such a powerful mandate, even if it meant she might be alone at Bowles Lodge. She said she would have not minded and was with familiar people such as the staff. Personally I felt this would have been very unsatisfactory but I had to respect mum's very determined and expressed wishes. This point was completely overlooked by both the High Court and Court of Appeal. So what I did I did out of love for mum and will continue to do all within my power motivated by my love for her as her son.
On a personal note I must say one thing that you may or may not understand. You and Margaret Howard often said "We appreciate that this must be a very difficult and stressful time etc". Of course there have been times of stress but I have never been that emotionally attached to the outcome. I knew there would never be real winners or losers in this case. To me it is not about winning or losing - it is doing what is right to the best of my ability. You made the decision. You have the responsibility. Your fellow councillors then shared it with you at the Cabinet Scrutiny meeting and finally two judges also share the responsibility. That takes it all away from me.
Finally I want to pay special tribute to Margaret Terry, Beverley Seal and all the care team at Bowles Lodge. Margaret knew mum would thrive at Bowles Lodge and she did because of the love, human compassion and expertise of the care team. Even on your visits to homes in Kent I'm sure you have not witnessed those intimate moments of care when helping someone like mum to bed. Use of appropriate touch, patient listening and attention to the things that matter to mum meant she could go to sleep in peace. That is a truly wonderful testament to KCC staff and will probably never be celebrated in any glittering awards ceremony. In my view they are the real heroes.
Thank you for taking the time to read this rather long email. It was important for me to express these things. Now my attention is on finding mum's new home. I look forward to seeing you in the New Year.
Kind regards
John
From: Graham.Gibbens@kent.gov.uk [mailto:Graham.Gibbens@kent.gov.uk]
Sent: 29 November 2011 14:19
To: john@balloons.plus.com
Cc: Beverley.Seal@kent.gov.uk; margaret.terry@kent.gov.uk; Anne.Tidmarsh@kent.gov.uk; Jerry.Wilson@kent.gov.uk; Christy.Holden@kent.gov.uk
Subject: Mum
Dear John
Thank you for your recent sincere and heartfelt email regarding your mother.
As you quite rightly say, our priority throughout this process has always been to ensure that your mother receives the most suitable care that is appropriate to her personal needs and requirements. We will continue working hard with you and your mother to achieve the very best outcomes for her.
I will be more than happy to meet with you in the New Year as suggested. If you would like to let Susannah Adams know what date and time suits you best we will confirm something in the diary.
Thank you once again John for your very positive comments about the Kent County Council staff. I will ensure that they are passed on to those concerned.
With best wishes
Graham
No comments:
Post a Comment