eet

You're being a bit precious and defensive aren't you? I called you wrong. I called you inconsistent. I said you were confused. And that you exaggerated the medical facilities provided for Indigenous people. Where did I call you racist?

You say: "I'm not sure if I understand your response to the 'disgusting' question. You seem to be implying the children were clean with clean clothes yet some teacher decided to make them wash out of racism." You've got it, at last!

I asked you: "Why did you assume they were filthy and naked?" And you answered: "Well, normally people shower and change clothes when they're dirty." Precisely. But eet, the children had no choice. It was the teachers who compelled them to shower. No exceptions. One dirty, all dirty.

You say: "You're trying to tie me by association to the teacher who suddenly became a racist when the link between hygiene and health was pointed out to you." Am I? Show me where I do that. Or is it in your head?

I asked: “So what motivates eet to make such a grand and unsustainable claim (about abundant medical services) in the first place? “ And you replied: "Oh, I see, it’s confirmed; must be racism! At last, your poverty of ideas is confirmed. You’ve resorted to the last bastion of the inept. When all else fails; cry racism." What kind of logic is that? Is there only one possible reason for your making that unsustainable claim? What about pig ignorance? What about being misled? What about lying? What about exaggeration for effect? Why pick on racism? Perhaps when all else fails, cry foul - that you have been labelled a racist.

Or are you just trying to deflect the awkward question? It remains: why did you make and repeat the claim that "Aboriginals are the most prodded, tested and over serviced segment of the population in the country" when it's clearly not true?

Banjo,

I was born in a remote community, no doctors, nurses, just traditional midwives. Birth mortality rate was higher than it is now.

My overall point is that many communities do not even have adequate primary health care services and that the cost and imposition of travelling to the big smoke is financially and socially much more traumatic than many realise.

And for many critically ill old people the trip to the big smoke is one they fear is the last one. They choose to simply die at home instead.

And finally my eduation simply means I can tell you what my people are saying

FrankGol,

Sorry I took your innuendo the wrong way. Next time you insinuate something negative, I promise to take the second worst option.

I've explained and stood by my statement about health services a few times now. Go back and read my posts; the answers are all there. The problem is you don't want to accept them. Accepting them would mean Aborigines would have to take responsibility for their own decisions. Of course, then you wouldn't be able to blame everyone except Aborigines for their problems. Is there one thing they could do better to improve their health?

I won’t hold my breath for an answer. So far its been 74 posts and the closest you’ve come to a suggestion was to say I should read a ‘famous’ report. What does this report say Aborigines could do? We know we white fellas should build a maternity hospital in every community (according to Rainier), but what about Aborigines – should they do anything?

Until it’s widely accepted the best people to help Aborigines are Aborigines, nothing will improve. And this debate will get nowhere.

eet

In the hope that you really are interested in Indigenous health issues and know only what you've been told, I'll point you towards some important sources of information.

The Bringing Them Home Report is particularly worth reading the chapter on the causes of Indigenous mental health problems (www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/)

Australian Indigenous Healthinfonet is an outstanding web resource - a 'one-stop info-shop' for people interested in improving the health of Indigenous Australians. You can find information on just about any topic(www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/)

The Medical Journal of Australia's online version is called the eMJA. See e.g. the article by Cunningham, Cass and Arnold, "Bridging the Treatment Gap for Indigenous Australians" (MJA 182 (10) 2005: pages 505-50) There's another article in the same issue by Coory and Walsh about access to coronary procedures which the editors say "adds to a growing body of evidence that Indigenous Australians do not receive the same level of care as other Australians." (www.mja.com.au/public/issues/182_10_160505/cun10262_fm.html)

The Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, "The Health and Welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 2005", found that "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have low levels of access to, and use of, health services such as Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and private GPs... They face a number of barriers to accessing services including distance from services, lack of transport (particularly in remote areas), financial difficulties and proximity of culturally appropriate services. The relatively low proportion of Indigenous people involved in health-related professions can also affect use of health services by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people." (www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10172)

This should tickle your interest in Aboriginal people taking responsibility for their own health (quote: "what about Aborigines – should they do anything?") Have a look e.g. at the Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council, Inc. (www.kamsc.org.au/documents/krahp_report.pdf) or the Derbarl Yerrigan Health Service Inc in WA in which about 70% of the staff are Aboriginal (www.derbarlyerrigan.com.au/).

eet, we agree on one major point: "Until it’s widely accepted the best people to help Aborigines are Aborigines, nothing will improve." But they need fair dinkum amounts of money and lots more trained medical staff.

FrankGol,
You are still putting spin on what others say. When I say that people in rural and remote areas have to go to cities to get specialist treatment, it does not mean what you say. " It is abvious that medical services are far from adequate in indigenous communities". You would be the only person that suggests that if a clinic in a small community does not have the facilities or staff to carry out major surgery it is classed LESS than adequate. You know what you say is ridiculous, but it is only spin to you.

Rainier,
I had deduced some time back that you came from a small community.

I am also aware that infant mortality was high, also high was the mortality of mothers. Things improved a lot after Penicilin became widely used after WW2, but improvements were much slower in remote areas.

I appreciate the reluctance of some people, especially older ones,of not wanting to go to cities for treatment. I have been down that track and I know that the cost and the truamua is great. One prefers familiar suroundings.

What does surprize is that you say....."many communities do not have adequate primary medical services". I have no reason to doubt either you or eet and what you say is contrary to eet. I can only suppose that the services are adequate in some areas and not in others. Perhaps those who allocated the funds spent it on differing priorities, e.g. housing, in differing areas.

If adequate medical services are not available, then that is something that must be improved. But would not the authorities already know that? I did not notice it in that paper you gave the link to earlier. Maybe i missed it as I saw the paper to do with training aboriginal nurses, which is a good thing in itself.

Banjo this is getting silly. eet was unequiivocal when he said: 'If you speak to any remote area nurse you'll find that Aboriginals are the most prodded, tested and over serviced segment of the population in the country.' I challenged him, and you defended him.

You then said that your nearest large centre (population 24,000) were having trouble getting a specialist Obstertrician. And you generalised about the problems of access to specialist services - "Its all part of living in rural and remote areas."

Now you say I am putting spin on what you say. With breathtaking hypocrisy you then say to me: "You would be the only person that suggests that if a clinic in a small community does not have the facilities or staff to carry out major surgery it is classed LESS than adequate." I ask you where I said that? Who's putting spin on my words?

No matter. You now clarify matters. In answer to Rainier you now say: "What does surprize is that you say.....'many communities do not have adequate primary medical services'. I have no reason to doubt either you or eet and what you say is contrary to eet. I can only suppose that the services are adequate in some areas and not in others. Perhaps those who allocated the funds spent it on differing priorities, e.g. housing, in differing areas."

So you think both eet and Rainier are truthful; but how can they both be right? You know they can't, therefore you resolve your logical perplexity by concluding: "I can only suppose that the services are adequate in some areas and not in others." In other words, eet is wrong to claim that 'Aboriginals are the most prodded, tested and over serviced segment of the population in the country.' Some services are inadequate.

Can I suggest you read some of the references I cited in my last post to eet (above). I can see no reason with the AMA or the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare would publish lies or mere spin, can you?