Reader’s letter This is a debate entry, written by an external contributor. The post expresses the writer’s views.
We constantly read and hear that the municipality has little money, and must tighten/remove necessary measures that affect the weakest/marginal groups. Nor can it be easy to manage a municipality when many needs must be met for the various groups such as: the elderly, young people, children, people with physical or mental impairments and the mentally ill. When the various help and care departments can only assist with the basic, necessary physical health needs to get the day started, before they have to rush on to the next person and then to the next person again. When we also hear that there are cuts in staff, and that those who are left are wearing themselves out, it can lead to many sick leaves.
We are a married couple in their 60s, both of whom have major challenges due to each of our disabilities. In our former municipality of residence, we had BPA. We have now applied almost a handful of times to get a similar arrangement here in Larvik, but the refusal comes every time as sure as the sun. When I read about similar cases in ØP, I am disappointed by how difficult and varying it can be from municipality to municipality to get such an arrangement, because BPA is interpreted in different ways. The user-controlled assistant must be an equal opportunity tool to be able to participate on an equal footing with others, where the person who has the arrangement is the supervisor and gives the assistant larger and smaller tasks, inside and outside the home.
I received a support contact, like a plaster on the wound, when the BPA rejection came. Well, I got out twice a week. On trips, cafes, shopping centers and various. Then the support contact scheme was downgraded and redefined as an activity offer for different groups. This offer may be suitable for some, but not for everyone! Moreover, with physical challenges, we are just as different as the rest of the population in the municipality. We need assistance to get out and participate in various arenas in society. We need to show that we are also visible, and not just a uniform group that “sits inside!”
When the municipality “cuts back” on offers that affect a group that is already in a difficult situation in order to save for a great town hall and library, some warning bells should ring. Shouldn’t the citizens’ well-being come first?
