This Is Some Odd Definition Of ‘Care’, Laura…

Laura McInerney frets about the rich, doomed to lack empathy:

A recent press release, sent by a group promoting the government’s policies, (Ed: do you ever see this clarification on a progressive lobby group’s report?)bemoaned the inequities of modern state schooling by pointing out two facts. One: almost half the pupils studying health and social care at GCSE come from schools in the poorest areas. Two: about half the pupils studying advanced science GCSEs come from schools with wealthier intakes.

The implied conclusion: what horror! We are condemning poor children to a life of lifting elderly people while rich kids swish about in laboratories.

But a different thought struck me. Wouldn’t it be more worrying if no one was studying health and social care? And why don’t we worry that more rich kids aren’t doing it?

Because ‘rich kids’ usually want to remain so, and maybe even get richer in the future. If they aren’t throwing themselves at ‘social care’ careers, there’s usually a good reason.

The skills involved in caring for an elderly person with dementia, or a child with a disability, are not to be sniffed at. It’s not only kindness that is needed. How many of us could argue with a terminally ill 85-year-old over her right (or not) to smoke in sheltered accommodation?

Maybe none of us would think that relevant, frankly? Maybe we would think it cruel to force a dying person to conform to progressive ‘health’ policies, and so deprive them of a last pleasure.

If this is the sort of thing that ‘social care studies’ teaches you, perhaps the fewer people that take it, the better…

…it feels instinctively wrong that society’s need for care workers is being resolved only by poor kids doing a subject the wealthy have eschewed. I question whether it’s the schools in poor areas that are really in the wrong.

They are doing the best they can for pupils who will need skills to earn a living, without having to say ‘Do you want fries with that?’.

A student of mine who desperately wanted to be a hairdresser taught me an important lesson. Her parents, who had moved from Poland to give her “a better life”, were dead against it. The school, knowing she could achieve well academically, felt the same. I agreed – until I asked her: “Why hairdressing?”

“People around here have little money,” she said, “but with water, hot air and a brush I can make them feel like a superstar. Even if you are poor. If you have nothing. I take water – just water – and a brush, and make you feel better about yourself. How can I not do that?”

No problem at all. If that’s what you want to do. But don’t then start whinging that you can’t earn as much as a doctor or lawyer!

If you think that how people feel is the most important thing you can do for them, then fine, but frankly, getting them practical, physical remedies might be more use…

In the end, the question is actually whether any pupil should be studying health and social care – wealthy or poor. It seems a shame there isn’t room for all children to study at least one subject that broadens their scope beyond academia. Why not have all of them take one vocational option, to see the world through a different lens? Or are the wealthy really that afraid of learning how to care?

No. They are simply afraid that their children will starve if they adopt this wishy-washy feelings-led career path, while everyone else’s kids learn science, and get good jobs.

7 comments for “This Is Some Odd Definition Of ‘Care’, Laura…

  1. Rickie
    January 30, 2016 at 11:29 am

    “How many of us could argue with a terminally ill 85-year-old over her right (or not) to smoke in sheltered accommodation”?

    Spot on Julia!. this is the biggest failure of the pro smoke lobby that they ignored the terminally ill , and decided to go loony on smoking denial and conspiracy instead.

    The selfish bastards only worry about why non smokers can’t just put up with second hand smoke cos its harmless ( it gives me asthma and eye sting, but that don’t count as harmful) and bloody vapers vaping.


    • Errol
      January 30, 2016 at 12:07 pm

      It *isn’t* harmless though. It’s a disgusting poison.

      If someone is terminally ill and dying from lung cancer brought on by smoking and they want to keep smoking then refuse them entry to the hospital. Save money on drugs and let them die. Why waste resources?

      • Bucko
        January 30, 2016 at 7:08 pm

        Why waste resources? Because that person has been contributing to those resources their entire lives. The drugs are bought and paid for and they have a right to them.

        Oh, and most people are not cruel psychopaths like you.

      • February 1, 2016 at 2:19 am

        Smokers pay a huge amount of tax that non smokers do not. Smokers not only pay their National Insurance, or medicare but an additional impost – often more than 100% of the product cost – which more than outweighs the cost of hospital care. I suppose hospital care should be denied to obese people next, or those who climb mountains and have falls. Tell you what, why not start with denying hospital care to those road accident injured who are not insured. How dare they be pedestrians when there are loons in cars about.

      • February 7, 2016 at 7:02 am

        If someone is terminally ill, why deny them life’s pleasures for the short time they have left? That those pleasures aren’t ones you share is irrelevant.

        To think otherwise is supreme selfishness.

  2. Rickie
    January 31, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Smoker loons and their rights means they do what they want ,when they want ,and they don’t give a fuck about anyone else.

    That was last century Bucko…times have changed, its a shame you forgot about the terminally ill in sheltered accomodation which would have gained pubic support, instead loons like Pat Nurse want to promote safe smoking instead, and claim SHS is harmless, with Simon Clark worrying about dinner dances.

    Selfish bastards….you got what you deserve, a complete failure of lobbying against the smoking ban.


    • Bucko
      February 3, 2016 at 1:53 pm

      I never did have a fucking clue what you are blithering on about.

Comments are closed.