Published on 12, July, 2020
I was wondering if it is all about my bad luck or it is just reality. My son is 4 years old and has been diagnosed with ASD. He has sensory processing difficulties too. I remember that after a diagnosis what we received was a leaflet with information about the disability and nothing else. Luckily we have S&L therapy sessions but it is every three months?! Today I read that: "Experts believe that the first 5 years of the child's life are the most crucial and that is why intensive help before school is important, although intervention at any age is beneficial.". My question is: who is responsible for that intervention in this country? Rich parents who can afford private treatment? I fight for better life for my child and NHS specialists say that they cannot help me because of long cues or lack of government funding.. Does it mean that this country leaves us with no choice? I am so disappointed and do not know what to think about it whether it is a problem that we are not British or it is the same for everybody living here in the UK. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel that you fed up with immigrants and it is understandable. On the other hand everyone should be treated equally because it is not our fault that our child experiences such difficulties. Every parent wants to have beautiful, healthy children..
NAS36646 said: I fight for better life for my child and NHS specialists say that they cannot help me because of long cues or lack of government funding.. Does it mean that this country leaves us with no choice?
The answer is yes. The NHS was next to useless for me both before and after finding out about AS.
The problem is that the NHS has become one step away from a national religion with the public expecting that they provide every medical service imaginable. In reality the NHS is only really interesting in conditions that are life threatening and 'bread and butter' medical services.
It is debatable whether the NHS should expand into newer developments in medicine - and that includes AS - or whether they should strive to offer better quality in existing traditional medical services.
Something that has caused consternation is that approximately 25% of the NHS budget goes on the over 65s and it has reached a point where it could be argued that the NHS is transferring wealth from (often poorer) younger working people to (often better off) retired people. More cynically, it could be argued that the NHS is chucking good money after bad by squandering it on people close to the end of their lives whilst only providing crumbs to children's services. This is further complicated by the argument that people who have worked hard and paid taxes over their life should be entitled to better services than somebody who (or their parents) haven't.
Never a truer word spoken Arran. Part of the problem is that no-one is allowed to criticise the "good ole nhs".
Ever tried an official complaint, I have. Flowchart for dealing with any complaint:-
1. Can we deny it or can the complainant not prove it happened? If so deny it otherwise go to 2.
2. Can we blame it on lack of funding? If so blame lack of funding, otherwise go to 3.
3. If all else fails, apologise and say staff will be retained (but nothing will happen and complaint will be closed).
Not talking about who pays for it now but compared to the USA, our NHS provides a 3rd world service at best these days. I think I'm right in saying even those with no medical insurance in the USA get free basic care. I often wonder how that compares to our nhs?
Personally, I think its time to re-jog the NHS. Maybe provide some form of private treatment that you pay insurance for? Otherwise its not going to survive. Lot of people seem happy to pay for dental insurance on top of nhs treatment so why not.