Improving care provision for older people is not just about today’s older population, it is about all our futures, our own and our children’s.
Securing dignity in care for older people is something society should strive for, however, change in the longer term requires more than a reorganisation of structures. Fundamental to change is how the care of older people is conceptualised in the UK.
The Commission on Dignity in Care for Older People has identified many significant issues, which if addressed could make positive changes to the future of care for older people. Whilst such changes could make a difference, lasting change arguably requires new thinking at a philosophical and ideological level at all levels of society.
Ideologically government needs to shift its continued emphasis on a consumerist model of health and social care provision. Whilst a consumerist approach is clearly of benefit to market providers, and the public purse, it is questionable whether such an approach is of benefit to older people. Many of the problems experienced in private sector care provision originates from the under regulation of the care market, which, whilst enabling providers to cut cost and make profit, does nothing to address the poor quality of care many older people receive.
Models of management imported into health and social care from the business sector to support a consumerist approach exacerbate the problem.
Organisational structures support a depersonalised approach, for example working practice which allows carers to distance themselves from the older person, so as to reduce any emotional involvement between carer and cared for. The breaking down of care into component parts, such as 15 minute visits, whilst, considered efficient from a resourcing perspective does not facilitate the building of a relationship between older person and carer. Surely, care is more than a timed task to be done to another?
Managerialistic approaches taken from the business sector influence not just health and social care professionals, but also wider society. Leading society to focus on the ‘management’ of older peoples care needs, such an approach serves to separate us all from the lived experience of the older person, care then becomes a transaction, intervention, a process, or target, by which governmental and wider societies’ need to reduce public expenditure is met, is cost really all that matters today?
Have we reached the position predicted by Zymunt Bauman (2008) who, when considering if ethics has a chance in a world of consumers, suggests designing, elaborating, and putting into operation values of mutual hospitality must at some point become a necessity for the human species? Bauman argues no place on the planet is spared a point blank confrontation with the challenge, because as Levinas (1961) suggests, the moral impulse to care for one another is a poor guide for behaviour when one moves beyond a one to one relationship to plural others (the Third) because it cannot be sustained. Something more is required, and that something requires substance.
A change in the philosophical foundations shaping our understanding of older people and their care should be the starting point.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s (1724 – 1804) ‘Categorical Imperative’ suggests everything in life has either a price or a dignity. A need for example for material resources has a price because it is replaceable, but that which is irreplaceable has a dignity. Morality, Kant suggests is one such dignity that cannot have a price. Arguably, compassion toward the most vulnerable in society is one such dignity that does not have a price, and is therefore above monetary value.
Dignity should not be viewed as an optional extra, dignity is integral to the care of older people across society. In the longer term for structural change to be effective a deeper and more meaningful approach to care is required because if we continue on the current pathway, as the Manic Street Preachers might suggest “if you tolerate this then your children will be next”.