Editorial: Disabled care ruling carries dangers

OPINION: When any woman learns with joy she is pregnant, she and her husband - if she has one - hope the resulting child will be happy, healthy and, eventually, perhaps wise. So if she gives birth to a baby that is disabled - intellectually or physically - she and her family are often deeply shocked.

The implications can take months to set in as couples who hoped that wee Jack or little Sophie would, one day, become independent, grow to accept that might never happen. Sometimes, a disabled child must remain with his or her parents for life. The dashing of dreams is almost always difficult to deal with. Suddenly, a parent's existence becomes as confined as that of their offspring, limited in terms of income, of outside interests, of dreams for their retirement.

It can be a crushing blow.

The parents of nine disabled adult children facing that kind of reality have been seeking taxpayer support for the usually never-ending task of caring for a son or daughter who might be wheelchair-bound, never be able to smile, cry or recognise family, or require constant help in doing everyday tasks, from using a toilet to eating a meal.

They have argued that they should, as non-family carers are, be paid by the Health Ministry for the task.

Last week, they had a victory - of sorts. The Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled that they, too, should be eligible for payments from the taxpayer. Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan was ecstatic, then downcast at news that the Government would almost certainly appeal against the ruling.

Ms Noonan said it was a "resounding decision" for the parents and adult children involved, and that "any appeal would constitute a further unconscionable delay in ensuring these long-suffering families can finally receive justice".

That was curious terminology from the public servant.

Justice for what? For having had the misfortune to bear a child who wasn't perfect? How is the taxpayer responsible for that?

And where does it stop?

What of the husband caring for a wife with cancer? A wife caring for a husband with a chronic disease, such as multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's?

Parents caring for small, rather than adult, children who have, say, rheumatoid arthritis or severe epilepsy?

In coming to its decision, the tribunal said it did not accept the argument that the support parents give to these "heavily dependent" adult children could be considered "natural" support. The financial impact of paying the family members involved in the application wasn't likely to be great within the disability sector, it went on.

The Government disagrees. It fears that the tribunal decision will have wider ramifications than those for the disability sector. As frustrating as Ms Noonan might find that, the ministers involved have a responsibility to the wider tax base, especially in straitened times.

Health Minister Tony Ryall is obliged to appeal against this decision.

- © Fairfax NZ News