This time of year brings back bad memories of the families of caregivers who died in the first wave of Covid when the virus passed, mostly uncontrollably, through nursing homes.
A little more than two years later, the Supreme Court’s ruling that the government’s hospital discharge policy, which sent thousands of people without tests to care homes was not only illegal but also “irrational,” comes as bitter evidence what they already knew: something went wrong.
Katie Gardner and Faye Harris were the two grieving daughters who secured the solution in the face of vigorous denials of government wrongdoing. But it also provides justice to the families of many of the 12,500 residents of nursing homes who died with Covid in March and April 2020, some of whom activists say could be saved.
Among those members of the family was Charlie Williams, whose father, Rex, 85, was one of 27 people who died at his Coventry care home.
“The last two years of cover-up and denial have been incredibly painful,” he said. “We have always known that our loved ones have been thrown at the wolves by the government, and the claims made by Matt Hancock that a” protective ring “has been set up around care homes are a disgusting lie. Now the court has found their decisions illegal and it is clear that the decisions taken have led to the deaths of people who might otherwise still be with their loved ones today. “
Another relative who made the decision was Lindsay Jackson, whose mother Sylvia died at a care home in Derbyshire on April 17, 2020.
“This is a confirmation of what many of us believed to be true,” Jackson said. “But to see in black and white that your government has ignored our most vulnerable people and left them to dry up is really shocking. We are all made to believe that the first requirement of the government is to keep its citizens safe. Not only did they not do it, but they actively put them in danger. “
The case could help families file claims for compensation, but also offers a preview of the statutory public investigation into coronavirus, due to begin this spring, which will announce interactions between ministers, officials and scientists as they battle decisions. for life and death.
In this case, for example, it turned out that the Minister of Care Helen Votelli asked for draft guidelines for admission, which do not require negative tests: “Why do not we plan to test patients for discharge in the care sector? That would make such a difference. “She also wrote:” It’s written as if the NHS is divine and nursing homes are slaves.
The feeling that social care was a top priority remains after Wednesday’s sentencing.
“The government’s intention was to put a protective steel ring around the NHS and let nursing homes take care of themselves,” said Nadra Ahmed, executive chair of the National Care Association, which represents independent care operators. “The nursing homes continue to support their residents and staff in the very turbulent waters. Any supporting funding for our sector has been suspended and we are left to wait for the crumbs of the NHS recovery program before we see any support without a plan to restore welfare. “
The judges found that “preparing the March [2020] discharge policy and april [2020] the Admission Guidelines simply did not take into account the extremely important risk considerations for the elderly and vulnerable residents of asymptomatic transmission. ‘
They concluded that the decisions of then-Health Secretary Matt Hancock to “design and maintain” policies on how hospital patients could be sent to care homes were illegal, as he did not has taken into account the risk of asymptomatic transmission.
A Downing Street spokesman said the ministers “tried to act, informed by the evidence we had – clinical or otherwise – and the opportunities we had at the time”.
They added: “What we saw during this pandemic was that we acted to strike this balance between saving lives and making a living.
Add Comment