SOLIDARITY WITH THE PARTNERS OF THE HOUSE OF INCA It seems perverse to generalize and even more when the information is not contrasted.
This week we have seen in the media have denounced novaedat internal Inca
a case of grievous bodily harm.
The only interest of this information has to do with the illness the case of April 2009 when the residence had to change because of the disaster management of care received there.
However, I think we have to meet certain differences between these cases.
First For 2009 the information was that the pool bar was closed because it was a disaster. Was a authoritative information and other information that might be of interest as a public service with public money managed by private hands too greedy (it seems) was not meeting minimum standards of quality, not to say it was indecent treatment there could be received since it went against public health.
Secondly, if this week is simply that a family has a complaint for grievous bodily harm. The news had gone unnoticed if not for the history of 2009. However, this assumption is wrong. Link Pretender "other" malpractice case is a fallacy because the only thing they share both the building and that management structures are different. Why not have the same interest in many other reports that are generated every day?
A complaint of this caliber only makes sense after having spent the previous way of complaint to the company (novaedat) and therefore it seems a bit hasty. And there seems to be the case. Act in the first instance denouncing such events leads to the American model we learned in the TV series and in the tabloids to report in court that futility has failed our decision by dialogue. No doubt another failure of intelligence.
thing that strikes me is that in no case anywhere, there is a detailed, which is where the crumb. What if that old lady had problems to roam? What if you had a degenerative disease that is slowly stopping to stand? What if this person is not able to remember having to use a cane, a walker, a wheelchair to move around and use them instead of falling hopelessly decides to get up to next? What if this person needs some individualized care in a home they can not pay because it is essential that closely monitored? But that does not matter because much cooler and sell more yellow over to the side information with a very crappy information about an investigation of grievous bodily harm. Why recklessness of whom? What the patient? How the family? What the school management? "From the team responsible for nursing care? Too many unanswered questions that allow Internet mindless comment with vague generalizations cruelly hurtful. Too many people deserve my contempt for his lack of discipline and this case is full of people like that.
good I know ink that the dedication of the nursing team oversteps the labor commitment. I know for a fact that the care provided there are exquisite with the only limitation of resources allocated. I know on good authority that the nursing staff is excellent.
why my solidarity with the nursing staff.
To finish just wanted to reflect on the importance of appearing in the news media as it alleged. I think we need to appeal to the responsibility of the editors of the different media in spreading this news, first Instead it is stigmatizing (allegedly) so needless to a hospital and social stigmas such as nursing homes and secondly because the (perceived) stigma affects people who work there. Did the family that this could happen? Why leaked the news? Is the family aware that these workers will have a lifetime spot on your resume? There is a possibility that this claim is unsuccessful but the damage is done. The bad press to these colleagues have already made a dent and will be forever, even if proven otherwise, which mistreated and tortured the Inca elders. Certainly very unfair. That is why I wish this family that have to be served by these professionals at some point in their lives to realize the injustice of his decision.