As a Pediatrician who was drummed out of her hometown for standing up to mill-town corporate bullies and helping a critically-ill baby when she needed someone somewhere to have a clue . . . a doctor who found no aid/protection/shelter from the state when she tried to fight back . . . I can testify that when it comes to the healthcare of (and advocacy for) children in this state, NCDHHS and the rest of those yay-hoos in Raleigh talk a good game . . . but they do not back it up.
And, of course, when it comes to the care of kids, the local (Asheboro/Greensboro) press doesn't think the local bullies need any scrutiny. In their book (always looking forward behind the rose-colored shades), the despicable way Pediatricians have been treated in Asheboro/Randolph County is not "relevant" to anything going on in the here and now.
The practiced, determined, methodical disinterest demonstrated by our local newspapermen . . . who have failed to pay any heed to this particular cubbyhole of "social media" . . . is all about ad dollars and protecting big names.
I don't want to hear that Ed Cone has not had an ulterior motive in the way he and his blog-buddies have treated me over the last four years. I just don't want to hear it.
It's not just about me. Witness: The condition of the children's ward at Butner.
. . . the children's wards were frequently cold in winter, that toilets and sinks were often clogged, and that staff battled ants and roaches in classrooms.
It's just the environment a mentally-ill child needs to recover. Lanier Cansler fairly clearly wants a pat-on-the-back for moving these kids to a new hospital.
But what I'd like to know is why children were housed/treated there in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Why is it that we treat the very old...the very young...the not-so-well-off, and the very fragile members of our community...like trash? Especially our children? I don't get it.
Erik, it's a complicated question. And I don't think it's all about people being held down by "the powers-that-be".
We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have certain civil rights. That's it. Happiness is not a guarantee. Constitutionally, the government is not obliged to pay for happiness - or even really be a safety net. But they are obliged to play fair - and that we are all treated fairly.
Here's the thing: individual personal repsonsibility must be part of the equation. At some point, it stopped factoring in.
I have seen many many people have children then use them/hide behind them in order to make their own way in the world. I don't understand the mindset that has people these days believing they are entitled to this hand-out or that from the government . . . or that everything is a birthright.
On the other hand, the very young/old, the poor, the not-so-well-off, the lesser-named, the fragile are certainly easier to treat like trash . . . and there are whole segments of our society that have reveled in it - and gotten rich off of it - all on the premise that they're about the public good.
Perhaps my biggest beef is that when the government says it's going to be a safety net . . . and the people who rely on that net (be they mentally-ill children . . . or doctors in public service "wacky" enough to think that they had rights under Federal agreement) . . . fall through holes in the net, the public needs to jump up and down and scream.
They don't. They haven't.
Of course, a good portion of the time the general public does not have a clue.
There is no accountability. Something is fundamentally wrong.
Post a Comment