'The UK is completely and institutionally ageist'

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
'The UK is completely and institutionally ageist' say the chief executive of Care England - Guardian article. https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... lly-ageist

“Age is a protected characteristic under the Human Rights Act but the health and social care system is constantly discriminating against older people. Older people don’t get the services they have a legal right to. For example, a younger person with brain damage will have a care plan from the NHS that includes maintaining links with their family and accessing education.

“An older person with the same level of functionality but suffering dementia, however, will have a social care plan costing many thousands of pounds less a week, which is based entirely around getting the older person out of bed, washed and breakfasted, all in half an hour.
Beat me to it Greta ... watching the footie scores and not paying attention !

( Interesting ... my cancer patient with dementia conundrum yet again !!! )

( https://www.carersuk.org/forum/support- ... read-32659 )

( This time , with some academic clout ! )


Yep ... strong words ... deserved words ... from a CHARITY boss ... no gagging him , thankfully ?

UK is " Completely and institutionally ageist. "

Care England chief says ageism is national scandal that should be challenged in courts.


The UK is “completely and institutionally ageist”, according to the chief executive of Care England, the largest representative body for independent social care services in the UK.

Prof Martin Green, also the chair of the International Longevity Centre, said ageism in the UK was “a national scandal” that should be challenged in the courts.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) should, he added, “hang their heads in shame” over its failure to pursue as many ageism cases through the courts as other protected characteristics, such as racism or homophobia.


The EHRC has disputed Green’s claim but its figures show that eight of the 27 cases ongoing in August 2018 involved age, two out of 21 litigation cases that concluded between April and August 2018 involved age, and nine of the 40 cases that concluded in 2017-18 involved age.

Green said: “The EHRC is ignoring the elephant in the room in such a determined way – despite me personally drawing it to their attention numerous times – that I can only assume they’re part of the problem: that they’re imbued with the same institutionalised ageism as the rest of society.

“Age is a protected characteristic under the Human Rights Act but the health and social care system is constantly discriminating against older people. Older people don’t get the services they have a legal right to. For example, a younger person with brain damage will have a care plan from the NHS that includes maintaining links with their family and accessing education.

“An older person with the same level of functionality but suffering dementia, however, will have a social care plan costing many thousands of pounds less a week, which is based entirely around getting the older person out of bed, washed and breakfasted, all in half an hour.


“God alone knows why it hasn’t been challenged in the courts in the same way that instances of racism or homophobia are. If you just flip the categories, you see how unacceptable ageism is. You hear those in the NHS say: ‘That person is too old for an operation’ but they’d never say they are ‘too black’ or ‘too gay’ for treatment.”

A report by the Royal Society for Public Health found that ageist attitudes existed across generations, affecting health and wellbeing. Christopher Brooks, the senior policy manager at Age UK, said older people frequently experienced discriminatory treatment across public and private services.

In health and social care, treatment rates drop disproportionately for people over 70 in areas such as surgery, chemotherapy and talking therapies. In employment, polling by YouGov commissioned by Age UK in 2017 found that 36% of over-55s felt they had been disadvantaged at work because of their age.


Rebecca Hilsenrath, the EHRC’s chief legal officer, said: “No one should be treated differently because of their age and Prof Green is entirely wrong to say that we do not take age discrimination extremely seriously.

“Much of our work speaks to this. Our strength is that we do not look at issues in isolation and we work to improve the lives of everyone by tackling problems that affect multiple groups of people in areas such as healthcare, work and living standards.”

Janet Morrison, the chief executive of Independent Age, said: “There’s casual ageism in terms of popular culture and attitudes, and there’s institutional ageism in across every sector, industry and service that you care to mention.

“We need to start calling out ageism a lot more often. We need to challenge the stigma in the same way that it’s challenged with other protected characteristics. We need to be a great deal angrier about it than we currently are.”

Brooks agreed that ageism was prevalent in British society. “Ageism matters because as we have an ageing population, it becomes increasingly important to the UK as a society and our economy that we treat people equally,” he said.



Now a Trinity of professors in CarerLand ?

Beresford / Clements / Green ... all thorns in the side of present , and proposed , policy.

If only we could link up with them ... shades of 2008 , me thinks ?

A decade on and ... what do we REALLY matter ?
Any of these people put any costs on NOT discriminating on an ageist basis?

Until the cost is calculated there can't even begin to be the money required to be non-ageist set aside - or gathered from extra taxes (or diverted from existing tax spends).

So, how much would it cost the UK NOT to discriminate on the basis of age?
If " Age discrimination " is proven under the present Discrimination law , cost involved does not enter the equation.

If the Government considers the " Cost " too high , they will take steps to minimise it.

In that scenario , would the Tories want to alienate many of their voters ?

One saving grace of our Constitution over the centuries ... the Judiciary is totally independent of the Executive.

Hence the way forward IS for a legal challenge ... if only the same for the inmates of CarerLand ?

" Discrimination by association " ... enough ammunition in our Lord Kitch ... who out there is brave enough ?

Free public transport / 21 Hour Rule ... those two alone would change millions of lives ... add on the Overlapping Benefit Rule ( State Pension ... a benefit ? ) and ... welcome to a Very New World.

" The words from a judge ... for us , our most potent weapon ! "

First posted back in 2004 ... and again in 2018.
by Chris From The Gulag » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:15 am



 

If " Age discrimination " is proven under the present Discrimination law , cost involved does not enter the equation.

If the Government considers the " Cost " too high , they will take steps to minimise it.

**

Well, cost does enter the equation as it will mean higher taxes (as you indicate in your 'lose votes' admission!). How could the government minimise the cost (except by simply refusing to meet it!!!) (or only partially, etc etc).

That said, it does raise a huge issue of 'ethical politics'.....are the lives of young people intrinsically more 'valuable' than those of old people (who have 'had' their life.....?) !!!! One to keep the political philosophers arguing!
Yep ... potentially flout the Law as those affected by it ... senior citizens / the disabled / us ... can only mount legal challenges themselves ... unless someone with real clout accepts the challenge ???

So much for the Law ... if it is not challenged by those who are protected by it but ... at the same time , discriminated under the same law ... by deliberate Government policy ???

The DWP suffered a humiliating defeat in the courts earlier this year as a direct result of the actions of disgruntled , disabled , citizens ... high time for both our senior citizens and us to flex our muscles ?
"Humiliating defeat?" Which one was that, Chris?
https://www.carersuk.org/forum/support- ... ents-35161

More than 4,500 disabled people wrongly stripped of their benefits, DWP minister admits.

Blunder acknowledged more than one year after a ruling that disability living allowance payments should not have been stopped.