Published Work

Community care : a question of rights

Public Deposited
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.creator
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.editor
  • Robinson, Janice
  • Harding, Tessa
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.place_of_publication
  • London
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.publisher
  • King's Fund Centre
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.date_published
  • 1995
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.issue_number
  • 1
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.pagination
  • 8
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.series
  • Community care debate
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.abstract
  • This debate is the first of a series organised by the King's Fund. The question posed was: would ill or disabled people and their carers be better off with a community care system guaranteeing them rights to services. The debate was opened by Nasa Begum who argued that elderly and disabled people want a different kind of community care, one that provides them with the essentials of daily living. Raymond Plant developed the argument that rights and entitlements are, from politically contrasting views, seen as ways of constraining welfare bureaucracies which have a tendency to grow and act in their own interests. Jane Winter argued that a lack of clarity about rights and responsibilities in community care is at the heart of problems faced by authorities and by disabled people themselves. Andrew Foster pointed out that the impact of the reforms are only now beginning to be felt. He argued that expectations of better community services have not yet been met, and while it will take time for service improvements to show through, the new system is forcing authorities to be more clear and open about what they will provide and who will be entitled to provision. Sir William Utting proposed in summary that the Government should resolve to embark on a comprehensive revision of the law relating to community care while acknowledging that the issues of substantive rights are more problematic than the argument for procedural rights, over which the Secretary of State has considerable discretion.
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.note
  • Pagination: 8p.
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.subject
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.resource_type
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.rights_statement
Translation missing: fr.dog_biscuits.fields.biblionumber
License

Relations

Contenu

La vignette Titre Date de téléchargement Visibilité actes
file details 0001.tif 2021-07-16 Public Télécharger
file details 0002.tif 2021-07-16 Public Télécharger
file details 0003.tif 2021-07-16 Public Télécharger
file details 0004.tif 2021-07-16 Public Télécharger
file details 0005.tif 2021-07-16 Public Télécharger
file details 0006.tif 2021-07-16 Public Télécharger
file details 0007.tif 2021-07-16 Public Télécharger
file details 0008.tif 2021-07-16 Public Télécharger
file details 014299.pdf 2021-07-16 Public Télécharger