Related Articles
Maree Todd should stop relying on outdated report
I would like to challenge some of Maree Todd’s many assumptions in the matter of medical services in the far north. Firstly I would like to point out that Ms Todd is our representative, supposedly our advocate.
Ms Todd has made a decision to support a disastrous and immoral policy implementation based on accepting the accuracy of a report which examined the maternity and medical needs of the far north.
Written from a desk in Inverness using a map and census figures, one assumes from the two-dimensional lack of understanding of terrain and population that it demonstrates, driven by concept not reality.
I’m working from memory here, but was outraged at the time that it placed the population in a low economic category and from this concluded that we are poor, isolated, frequently unemployed, under-nourished, overweight, and supine. The assumption that the writer was an expert and should be believed has caused us a great deal of pain and anguish.
In reality, this was a numbers exercise. We had three maternity consultants instead of two to serve us. The review of the maternity service followed the potentially avoidable death of a newborn baby.
Of course it was right that an investigation should take place, but it was a matter for personal, medical, professional discipline, not for the redefining of a service for an entire population. But the fact was that we had a higher level of staffing.
Remember too that we are talking here of an NHS who at that time seemed no stranger to deceptive practices. I recall a very upbeat glossy publication from them then, trumpeting a number of planned improvements in service, among them the entire redecoration and facelift for the Queen Elizabeth Ward in Caithness General, which did take place, but not for the elderly patients as implied in the leaflet, but for renting out as offices, as it remains today, I believe.
I also recall that plans to run down general medical services at the hospital were justified by the claims that no staff could be persuaded to live here and no-one applied for jobs.
And just following the too poor, too few, too stupid (to worry about) maxim, I never did credit the much-vaunted report that Ms Todd believes tells an accurate story, but in any case, what is the matter with the woman that she can’t understand the catastrophic enormity of what she is defending? For what reason? Because the report was written by an expert?
So what is she saying? That this one person knows better than approximately 38,000 residents of this area? I think it doubtful that Ms Todd would find a single resident of sound mind who would validate the findings of that report.
Or is she saying that a person with medical qualifications is superior to all other skills and abilities? Like Dounreay scientists or qualified teachers or lawyers who could probably rip chunks out of that report and show it to be the sham that it seems to me to be, or people who can cook, run businesses, mend machines, garden, drive massive lorries, demonstrate good parenting skills? Et al? Or is she saying that people with medical expertise don’t make mistakes? So what triggered the report was not an investigation into medical mistakes?
I think it might be a good time for Ms Todd to recall that the definition of a politician is one who represents the best interests and concerns of their public in parliament. Removing all creditable means for safe birthing for the women of Caithness and Sutherland cannot possibly be seen under any circumstances as in their best interests, and the reforms to Caithness General have caused immense concern, chronic inconvenience and expense to the whole population. So how is it justifiable?
How about we forget the modern apparent acceptance of how politicians view a politician’s job, which appears to be one which fobs off embarrassing queries from the electorate, but promotes party politics, party loyalty to dogma, personal gain and lots of expenses, not in that order, and probably not applicable to Ms Todd (except the loyalty to dogma bit, and the belief that she knows and can dictate what is best for us), and return to the case in point which is that in order to enable SNP governance and policies, our own elected representatives have allowed, and continue to condone and defend, a policy and provision of service that is so overwhelmingly rotten that an entire district is overwhelmed by it.
It is an amazing thing that it hasn’t gone to the Court of Human Rights or at least been challenged by our own Equality Act. Sovereignty of the people, Ms Todd, that’s supposed to be what Scotland is about. You are not serving us if you think that we agree with your reading of the quality of that report.
Centralisation may have brought excellent expertise in specific fields of medicine, but those hospitals are up and running now. Time to look again at the areas of need that were starved to provide them. And the most important job you can do now is to repair the wrongs done to the women and families of Caithness and Sutherland, the elderly, damaged and ill, stop hiding behind an outdated and unenlightened report and work your socks off to get Caithness General back to full operational strength as the esteemed training hospital it once was.
Ros Curwood
Barrock Street
Thurso
Somebody knows answers over Avonlea
The headline in last week’s Groat, “Chief exec (Derek Brown), ‘has hands tied’ over answers on Avonlea and Thor House” is a bit misleading. The motion which called for an independent review into the reasons for the closure of Avonlea was democratically voted down on a casting vote.
Shamefully, two Caithness councillors, Raymond Bremner (Council leader) and Karl Rosie, voted against the motion and a third Caithness councillor, Willie Mackay, chairperson of Enable which has benefitted hugely from the support of Thor House over many years, was posted missing when the time came for votes to be cast.
It’s not clear that Derek Brown is able to shine a light on the reasons Avonlea closed and the overnight respite service at Thor House was indefinitely suspended because he might be as much in the dark as everyone else given the manner in which Raymond Bremner seems to rule the roost, although surely there’s nothing preventing Derek Brown from doing a full investigation into the issues and the behaviours of some of his senior staff, particularly those in the health and social care department.
Of course, this would mean the Highland Council in effect marking it’s own homework and we don’t have to guess what the outcome of that would be, which is why an independent review is urgently required.
So, to be clear, the vote was solely about getting an independent review, nothing else. The big question is why it’s been impossible for almost two years to establish just exactly why Avonlea was closed and Thor House respite support suspended.
Councillor Bremner is quoted as saying, “if they, (the councillors) still think they haven’t got progress or answers, they can meet with the chief executive or senior officials”. Sarcasm aside, it’s not a matter of what they think, the reality is that they haven’t got progress or answers, nor have all the concerned members of the public, the families desperate for respite, the children crying out for support and protection, the pressure groups that are springing up in Caithness and beyond. And remember, Avonlea and Thor were resources for the Highland region, not just Caithness.
Like many superficially complex problems, the solution is simple. Derek Brown, who in his defence inherited a hornets’ nest left by the previous incumbent Donna Manson, genuinely may not know the answers we seek. But certainly Raymond Bremner must do as he seems to be the power behind everything in Glenurquhart Road.
He talks vaguely about reports being prepared and democratic procedures being followed but in effect comes up with nothing. The convenor Bill Lobban must know, as must the senior managers in the health and social care department. Is there a hidden agenda? If so, why has it been hidden for almost two years? And when will all those responsible finally get the message that we are not going away?
Billy Sinclair
Ormlie Drive
Thurso
Final response on Trump exchange
Mr Farquhar (Letters, August 23) responded to my previous article in the Groat (August 16), addressing claims made about the effectiveness of former US president Donald Trump. This exchange is becoming convoluted and quite the game of telephone, but I will do my best to be clear.
Firstly, I appreciate Mr Farquhar correcting a factual error in my previous piece. Trump did not suggest injecting bleach for Covid-19. He suggested injecting disinfectant at a White House press conference on April 24, 2020. Bleach is a disinfectant, but I should have been more precise. My apologies for the “unfortunate editing glitch”.
My “strawman” was providing additional context on Trump’s presidency and policies, which is crucial for evaluating his impact. Not all my points directly addressed Farquhar’s words, and its goal was to better inform readers of the political situation in the United States for a more balanced view.
Mr Farquhar claims that mentioning a strong military and booming economy under Trump wasn’t an endorsement of him. It’s bizarre to include these points in a letter praising Mr Trump should that be the case.
As clearly stated in my previous letter, these claims were not false, but Trump wasn’t the cause of these, and I provided evidence for a more nuanced view on the matter. If these weren’t meant to support Trump, then the reason for their inclusion is unclear.
Regarding Afghanistan, 11 servicemen died during Trump’s last year. Farquhar “obviously” was referring to combat deaths. There were four combat deaths in Afghanistan in Trump’s last year as president, according to the Department of Defense. Mr Farquhar has since shifted from “last year” to “11 months” to fit this narrative. Is it nit-picking to point out this change? Nit-picking to change to combat deaths? I’ll let readers decide.
On “Operation Warp Speed,” I argue the outcome would have been similar under any administration, due to the US medical industry’s and governments’ vast resources, not Trump. Any administration would have put in place a similar programme, and I’m also unsure what Trump did that others would not have to make this operation more effective. The credit should go to the staff of the agencies and companies involved, not the man who signed the paper.
For illegal immigration, the 11 million total figure as of 2022 is corroborated by the Pew Research Center and Department of Homeland Security. “Federation for American Immigration Reform,” cited by Mr Farquhar, is not a government agency as stated, but a non-profit founded by white nationalist and eugenicist John Tanton.
Border guards, questionable non-profits, and unsourced statements from Republican Senators are less reliable than government agencies and highly respected research groups like Pew.
Mr Farquhar states that no mechanism exists to address illegal immigration in the US, yet mechanisms include US customs and border control, “ICE” US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the rest of the Department of Homeland Security, and Title 8 Code 1227 of the US Code, which allows for deportations – 1.4 million migrants were deported in 2022. Any illegal immigrant is, by definition, breaking the law and is thus subject to deportation under Title 8.
You can call it “nit-picking,” but facts and context matter. Mr Farquhar’s piece contains numerous inaccuracies and misleading claims when not placed in proper context. I fail to see how pointing out facts to the contrary are a “hatchet job” to Mr Trump; they certainly weren’t intended to be.
If facts are a hatchet job, maybe Mr Trump wasn’t as effective in office as claimed. Here we might bury the hatchet and let readers interpret our given evidence.
Gary Williamson
Braeside
Scarfskerry
Royal Mail delays have real-life impact
I recently underwent knee replacement surgery in Inverness. The biggest inconvenience after such treatment is the inability to drive. You have to organise this with family members. Public transport is also out of the question.
Follow-up visits to Inverness are necessary. I got letter for such an appointment for Tuesday, August 20. The letter was dated 12/08/2024 (Monday). The First Class envelope was also Royal Mail dated 12/08/2024. The letter was delivered late on 17/08/2024 (Saturday).
I was unable to organise transport at such notice. I had to wait until Monday 19/08/24 before being able to contact the hospital to reschedule the appointment. I was told that I would have to wait at least six weeks. Note that it was too late to have the appointment time given to another patient. The Royal Mail should pay the cost of this wasted time.
I have no proof that the letter was delivered on 17/08/2024. All First Class letters should be officially dated on the day they are sent out for delivery.
John Campbell
Waitside
Castletown
• Letters of up to 300 words should be emailed to editor@nosn.co.uk. Please include your address and a daytime telephone number. Letters will be included at the editor’s discretion and may be edited.
Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.
Source link
