Was ‘harvesting’ in care homes a de facto policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/12/was-harvesting-in-care-homes-a-de-facto-policy

Version 0 of 1.

Letters: John Clare believes deliberate government policies have led to the huge number of deaths in care homes. Plus letters from Dr John Causton, Ted Pawley and Moira Hankinson

Could anyone ever have imagined the chilling scenario set out by Richard Coker – the “harvesting” of our parents in Britain’s care homes (‘Harvesting’ is a terrible word – but it’s what has happened in Britain’s care homes, 8 May)? But Coker stops short of saying what stares us in the face: that this was the inevitable and foreseeable result of deliberate government policies.

Yes, we are in exceptional times. But in 2009, Andy Burnham, as health secretary, authorised half a billion pounds’ worth of personal protective equipment in case of a pandemic. This stock was criminally run down and allowed to go out of date under this government, and so was not available to hospitals and care homes when needed. Deliberate government policy.

My mother died naturally five years ago, having lived her life to its full conclusion, well supported in a Salford city council care home. Private care homes are now run on a shoestring, with staff on zero-hours contracts, without sick or holiday pay. Did the care homes receive extra government funding to buy the necessary PPE? Without it, staff inadvertently but inevitably transferred the virus from person to person. Preventable deaths in care homes are a direct result of privatisation and underfunding. Deliberate government policies.

On 14 April, I wrote to my family saying that Britain was going to have the worst death rate in Europe and that there was a tragedy waiting to happen in care homes. If I could foresee this, with no expertise in the field, undoubtedly so could ministers, scientists and civil servants. Yet there was no action taken to protect care home residents. The only possible conclusion to draw is that there was a view that the lives of people in care homes were dispensable. Deliberate government policy.

The government claims credit for having protected the NHS – but at what cost? My mother was taken into hospital several times when resident in a care home. The halting of this normal practice to stop hospitals being overwhelmed may have protected hospitals, but at the cost of the elderly. Deliberate government policy. Is the government going to be held to account?John ClareLeeds

• Thanks to Prof Coker for the clarity he brings to the Covid-19 issue in care homes. But the government’s “strategy” was an experiment that no properly constituted expert scientific advisory body would advocate. The position of the doctors, whether they act under political pressure or not, is unchanged, since they cannot be exempted by government from ethical practice. General Medical Council action in this case might ensure that doctors are not abused as political pawns.Dr John CaustonLondon

• “Harvesting” is a terrible word, but it’s what has happened in care homes – no doubt a reflection of the value to the Treasury of not paying pensions as a result of this government-approved form of euthanasia. Either that, or the “scientific advice” on PPE was driven by the lack of stock availability and not by the needs and the predicted outcomes for care home staff and residents.Ted Pawley Great Linford, Milton Keynes

• Richard Coker considers whether the death rate in care homes is a result of a deliberate if unstated “harvesting” strategy, or carelessness by the government. But what about the 540,000 people who receive care in their own homes? How many of these have died because their visiting care workers had insufficient PPE?Moira HankinsonHenley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire