Ed Said: What does ‘free’ really mean?

Last year the Northland District Health Board became the first in the country to of-fer free treatment for children aged from 6-12 years – under sixes were already free. This was a coup for the north in an area that, geographically, includes the Kaipara and anywhere north of. It is thus somewhat mystifying to read that the uptake of this service by maori families is almost nil. It is even more mystifying to read that, accord-ing to Manaia Health CEO Chris Farrelly, the key reason is ‘cultural acceptability.’

What exactly is ‘cultural acceptability’? Is this a PC phrase for apathy?

I understand a degree of cultural sensi-tivity but cultural acceptability is simply a crock. There doesn’t appear to be a prob-lem with cultural acceptability in schools where children of all races mix easily, at most sports, in the queue at McDonalds or KFC, or working alongside other ethnic groups in the supermarket, the forestry or the Warehouse.

Parents do their best but generally don’t have the knowledge to make a specific di-agnosis. A sniffle may be nothing more

than a sniffle but a sniffle lasting a fort-night may be a precursor to some deeper problem that only a doctor can diagnose. To this end surely the free service is a boon.

The problem is, the further north you go,where the service should have been wel-comed with open arms, the lesser the up-take by poorer Maori families. If a child is deemed in need of a doctor then surely, with the offer of a free service, you simply get him there one way or the other. Sure-ly apathy shouldn’t be an excuse. For ex-ample, with a majority of dialysis patients in the north being of ethnic persuasion I don’t see any problem with cultural accept-ability there and early diagnosis of any ail-ment for anybody must be preferable to fixing a deep-seated one later, especially in the case of a child.

Basically we have on offer to our public, some amazing services that operate at the drop of a hat without question and without direct cost unless warranted. Consider St John, the rescue helicopter, police, coast-guard and firemen, and surf lifesavers – many of which are manned by volunteers.

But still we have people disregarding speed limits, taking risks outrunning police, driv-ing drunk, without seat belts, texting while driving, boating and fishing after consum-ing booze and not wearing life jackets, tak-ing the batteries out of smoke alarms for video games and a whole lot of other ex-amples.

My point here is, there are great services available for those in genuine need. These services, medical and otherwise, have come on in leaps and bounds in the past 50 years thanks to technology but still we cannot protect people from themselves. While there may be drawbacks to any service (eg. the cost of getting to the doctor from an outer district, time off work) surely a sick child warrants some priority.

In denying this free service on offer to your child, is that not tantamount to ne-glect? Just my humble opinion.

Rob