ELDER ABUSE AND NO SUPPORT???

We are not in quite the same situation as the letter-writer below.  

While we own the house we are living in,the neighbours live in a house owned by the Victorian Department of Housing.

These are two villa units, numbers one and two, and the one at the front of the driveway is unit 1. We are the second one along the driveway, unit 2.

Unit 1, the public housing unit, is administered by an organisation which used to be called North East Housing, and it is now called Home, Haven, Safe.

As far as we were able to ascertain, the house was called transitional housing, the purpose of which was to provide temporary housing, often for people who had suffered from domestic violence, and it was to be temporary until more suitable premises could be found for the tenant.  

We have, in the 17years since we have been living in the house, been fortunate to have had some people living there, some with children, some without, who have been friendly, kind and helpful to the two of us who are now two old males aged 95 and 91. 

We do not own a car, and the current tenants have,in the year since they have been living there, owned one, two and three cars. Each house has a single garage and there are notices at the front and middle of the driveway stating that there is to be no parking in the driveway at any time.

 

Letter in The Age - 24 OCTOBER 2017:

Legal black hole

I was listening on ABC News Radio and found that it was broadcasting a federal parliamentary debate about White Ribbon Day.  It struck a strong chord with me.

I am a 77-year-old woman in poor health living alone and I am planning to leave my own home that I love to escape from verbal and psychological abuse from my elderly male neighbour.

He has been vandalising my garden with poisons and cutting implements for the past 14 years.  Each time he sees me outside the  house the shouting and threats begin again.  I have talked to the local police and Seniors Rights who both  say there is nothing they or I can do to protect myself from this constant bullying and intimidation.

I see a big hole in the laws surrounding violence towards women.  If I was living on my neighbour's side of the fence his behaviour would be called domestic violence, but as his neighbour rather than his wife I am totally unprotected.

I also believe that if I was a strong healthy young male rather than an old woman it would not be happening at all.

Name and address supplied

SELECTIVE INDIGNATION!

An article in the newspapers during the week of 31 December 2012 to 4 January 2013 - has produced some interesting analyses.

Pension reductions have been forced on single women with children to force them into newstart allowance and to make them look for employment when the youngest child turns 8. There are less and less jobs and if incomes are reduced, searching for jobs becomes more and more difficulty because of associated costs. No matter, an Australian Labor Party (sic) has all the answers for social problems, as ever robbing the poor to pay the rich and make them richer. Hence the growing divide between rich and poor!

On 1 July 2009 the Rudd ALP government "married" gay, lesbian, transgender, HIV couples living together and made them into "married couples" in itself and antiquated outmoded custom where men owned women and no woman was entitled to a single pension when her husband retired and was given a pension. Married couples did not and do not each get a single pension - they get a married rate pension, considerably less than 2 single pensions - and this is now 2013!!

Fast forward to the here and now! When the two of us were "married" by Kevin Rudd and his bunch of merrie men and women, and our single pensions which we had been receiving during our 70s and some of our 80s were combined into a "married" rate pension, we each lost about $100 per fortnight.

The Rudd government refused to provide a "grandfathering" clause to this change thus apparently ensuring a saving annually to the federal government of about $66 million per year.

In addition, now that we had a joint and combined income, where previously I personally as an individual received extra income from two small superannuation indexed pensions which, when they went up with indexing increased my income by a few cents a week, Centrelink reduced my pension by a few cents per fortnight, but now that we had been turned into Siamese twins by the government, when my pension was reduced fortnightly, so too was my partner's, thus saving the federal government a paltry sum which was expended on sending us letters each time with our amended incomes.

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction!

Where is the understanding of low income people by a government hell-bent on ensuring that their capitalist friends are enriched immeasurably - by a few paltry dollars from pensioners and single parents?

Spare us from their tears!

ELDER ABUSE OF GAY, LESBIAN, TRANSGENDER, HIV MEMBERS OF OUR AGEING POPULATION

This letter has been sent to two seniors newspapers: Victorian Senior and Fifty~Plus. We hope that one or both will publish it as it is an issue that will not go away!

ELDER ABUSE

7 July 2012

Elder abuse takes many forms and the one to consider at the moment is the abuse metered out to the Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and HIV (GLTH) members of the community.

Consider that for many years of their lives GLTH people were considered pariahs by society, were treated with contempt, derision, homophobia, discrimination, bigotry, hatred and exclusion.

On 1 July 2009 the federal government became one of the biggest perpetrators of GLTH elder abuse. On that day, after GLTH people aged over 60, 70, 80 and more were suddenly outed and made into married couples (if living in partnerships), called de factos, and those who were single pensioners suddenly became “married pensioners” and each in a partnership received “married” rates thus losing some few hundred dollars each per fortnight of Centrelink payment.

There were campaigns around the country for some months before the legislation came into effect asking the government to “grandfather” the legislation, because many GLTH retired elders had had to make provision as best they were able, to plan for old age without the benefits of relationship recognition because of ongoing homophobia and discrimination.

The campaigns being waged requested the government to consider doing away with the “couple” pension rates and providing single pensions for all pensioners receiving benefits from Centrelink. The campaigns were not supported by any of the Seniors organizations such as Council on the Ageing (COTA), Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association (CPSA), National Seniors Australia.

Amongst the points raised in the discussion were those that pointed out that “married” pensioner rates had been introduced when pensions were introduced because in those early days, many women had not worked in paid employment and governments still considered women to be “looked after” by their husbands who had direct control of the household income.

Those days vanished some several decades ago as women achieved changes in employment situations and became independent from having to rely on men for their handouts.

The government ignored the proposals because it was obviously going to save them millions of dollars for GLTH couples to be treated as married couples without providing the other securities which marriage would provide, legally and in other social ways.

So elder abuse of the GLTH communities writ large by a homophobic government and other ageing institutions came into force on 1 July 2009 and not a word of protest about this ongoing abuse.

How many of these organizations will take up the call to have this abuse stopped now?

Don’t hold your breath!

Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne; InterSection

EUTHANASIA WINS 75% SUPPORT

Article by Adele Horin in The Age newspaper:

Euthanasia wins 75% support

By Adele Horin

January 6, 2011

THREE out of four Australians believe voluntary euthanasia should be legal, according to a poll.

But despite levels of endorsement that have hovered between 75 and 85 per cent for many years, pro-euthanasia reformers admit to having been consistently outgunned by their opponents, resulting in five failed attempts to have legislation passed in two years.

The latest poll by the Australia Institute found 75 per cent of people agreed that, if someone with a terminal illness who is experiencing unrelievable suffering asks to die, a doctor should be allowed to assist them to die. Thirteen per cent did not agree and 12 per cent were not sure.
Advertisement: Story continues below

As well, the poll revealed 65 per cent of people who identified as Christians were in agreement, as were 71 per cent of Coalition voters, 79 per cent of Labor voters, and 90 per cent of Green voters.

The deputy director of the Australia Institute, Josh Fear, said the high support among Christians was striking, as was the 73 per cent support from people aged 65 and over.

''If anyone in the community would have thought about it and had strong views, it would be people feeling their mortality,'' Mr Fear said. ''Support in the oldest age group was slightly less than average but still very much a majority.''

The poll of 1294 people was conducted online but drawn from a nationally representative sample. It found 18 to 24-year-olds, with 70 per cent support, had the highest level of ''not sure'' at 16 per cent while the 65-plus group had the lowest proportion of ''not sure'' at 7 per cent.

Euthanasia bills have been voted down in Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and twice in South Australia since 2008. Federal Greens leader Bob Brown will introduce a bill to seek to overturn legislation that prevents the ACT and Northern Territory from legalising euthanasia. NSW Greens MP Cate Faehrmann plans to introduce a private members bill in her state parliament this year.

Ms Faehrmann said that despite wide public support she expected a repeat of the forceful campaigning by the Catholic Labor Right and the Catholic Church seen in other states.

''The proposed bill has so many safeguards that only a very small number of patients would be able to access it,'' she said.

''We know from Oregon's experience [that] the vast majority who access the law have no religion. People with strong religious views don't access it and shouldn't stop others from doing so.''

SA Greens MP Tammy Franks said the defeat of a bill last November followed a highly organised and well-resourced campaign by conservatives working together across party, religious, and even state lines.

''Until the voluntary euthanasia side is able to compete with such a highly organised campaign machine we are going to struggle to have the majority voice heard,'' she said.

WA Greens MP Robin Chapple, whose bill was defeated in September, said a well-orchestrated campaign that included a personal letter from the Catholic Archbishop to MPs had been influential.

RUDD AND ROXON LEAD THE HOMOPHOBIC CHARGE IN THE GOVERNMENT

It is an interesting observation that Kevin Rudd does not seem able to comprehend that gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS (GLTH)members of the community are citizens of this country in the same way he and his family are - or maybe they aren't??

He does not utter these words, and his health minister, Nicola Roxon is the same, both not being able to understand or comprehend or unwilling to because of their homophobic disease that GLTH people are human beings and should benefit from the same human rights extended to most - not all people living in this country.

Rudd and Reagan - and Roxon - remember Reagan uttered the word AIDS for the first time 7 years into the epidemic when fellow actor Rock Hudson died of the disease.

Rudd and Roxon suffer from the disease of homophobia but it will not kill them. However it will kill those in our communities who are amongst the most vulnerable in our societies - the elderly, frail, disabled, disadvantaged, the poor, the homosexuals, the Aborigines, the Asylum Seekers.

There will be an election later this year, and neither of the two major parties have shown any willingness to treat GLTH people as voters. Punish them all by voting for those who DO support us, and let there be huge swings away from a two-party ruling system in this country.

Our health, mental and otherwise, doesn't matter to them, but we are alive, we vote and we will remember!

---------------------

Article in The Melbourne Times dated 5 May 2010:

LGBT community finds health system lacking for its needs

By Rosemary Bolger

Homosexual or bisexual people are more likely to be smokers and four times more likely to commit suicide or become homeless than heterosexuals, new statistics reveal.

An analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data by the National LGBT Health Alliance also showed homosexual or bisexual people were twice as likely to be estranged from family and have a high level of psychological distress. The alarming figures have strengthened the alliance’s case for government funding.

President Paul Martin said the national health reforms failed to address the needs of the LGBT community.

Mr Martin believed the first step would be establishing a body to work with the federal government. He said most other special interest groups such as disabled people, women or seniors, had a devoted (sic) minister or parliamentary secretary, and one or more funded non-government organisations.

“We’re probably about 10 or 20 years behind, so there’s a degree of invisibility.”

The alliance is seeking just under $400,000 a year to pay for an office and a few staff.

Money from the alliance’s founding members including Gay and Lesbian Health at La Trobe University, will run out at the end of yhis year forcing it to close without government funding.

Mr Martin said the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender community’s health needs were not met.

“Most people don’t receive outright hostility, it’s just the service assumes everyone’s heterosexual. It’s the assumption that everyone’s the same so the service isn’t targeted to meet our particular needs.”

Health Minister Nicola Roxon’s office did not return TMT’s calls.

--------------------------------------
GLBT health refused federal funding

Written by Brendan Bolger | 03 May 2010 SX - Sydney

Funding requests have been rejected and an invite to work with the recently formed LGBT Health Alliance has been ignored by the federal government at a conference convened to help the health sector deal better with sexuality and gender diverse people.

At the launch of the 7th Health in Difference conference on Thursday, LGBT Health Alliance chair Paul Martin told more than 200 delegates that many other equity groups are acknowledged by the government, except sexuality and gender diverse people.

The federal response to other equity groups he said had resulted in the creation of specific ministerial portfolios, departments and ministerial advisory groups addressing numerous other equity issues.

He said without federal funds future Health in Difference conferences could be placed in doubt, calling on the government to fund the LGBT Health Alliance as it does other non-government organisations.

“The time for not acting is well and truly over,” Martin told conference delegates, adding that the Commonwealth mental health plan to 2014 has “not a single mention” of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex people.

“[We] stand ready to work with the government, if only we were funded to do so,” he said.

Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Health Mark Butler opened the conference on behalf of federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon, following Martin’s speech, and from the outset said he had “been asked” to address “health reform in a general sense”.

The federal government has been intensely negotiating health reforms with state governments for the past few weeks and had also been “coming under pressure from a range of directions” such as ageing and chronic diseases, he said.

During his speech, Butler made only one reference to “LGBTI” which drew a pause from him, when a muffled “thanks” was given from one delegate who said it was the only reference the government had made to the conference itself.

The health and well-being of LGBTI people is not on the radar of the federal government, Health Alliance executive director Gabi Rosenstreich said before the conference.

“Hundreds of thousands of LGBTI people live throughout Australia but their health needs are not being adequately met by our health system due to a lack of understanding of LGBTI people and issues and a lack of engagement with the LGBTI community sector,” she said.

Recent approaches for funding had been rejected by the federal government, Rosenstreich said, despite overtures that LGBTI health is an area of its concern.

The conference held every couple of years was presented this year for the first time by the Health Alliance, a peak body of organisations that provide health services, programs and research that targets sexuality and gender diverse people.

The health and well being of indigenous Australians and transgender and intersex people, the impact of social inclusion and exclusion, political activism and the changing nature of diverse communities in a health context were just some of the many issues covered.

Health issues discussed at the conference which ended on Saturday included mental health, ageing, alcohol and drug use, violence, parenting, identity documentation, health service access and health promotion strategies.

ELDER ABUSE - US STYLE - WRIT LARGE!!

This article arrived on 19 April 2010 from Care2 in the USA:

Elderly Gay Couple Separated by Sonoma County Officials, Ignoring Couple's Express Wishes
posted by: Steve Williams

60 comments

On Thursday, President Obama issued a memorandum that reinforces hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples by threatening federal funding cuts if hospitals discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. As such, the issue of local authorities not adhering to medical directives or power of attorney rights when it comes to same-sex couples has been set firmly in the spotlight.

For obvious reasons, this is an issue of particular concern for many older and elderly LGBTs who may very well depend on established health care directives and the like to ensure that their wishes are adhered to when they are incapable, whether due to infirmity or an unforeseen health emergency, of communicating relevant details for hospital visitation rights and end-of-life decisions.

The following story documents one such incident of discrimination against a same-sex couple from Sonoma, California, who took all the required legal steps to establish their health care directives and power of attorney rights, but whose preparations were allegedly ignored by county officials that, despite the couple's 20 year relationship, considered them nothing more than "roommates" and kept them apart when, after an accident, one of them was hospitalized in 2008.

From the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) case summary:


Clay [Greene] and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place—wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health [but, as this report attests, had been starting to show early signs of cognitive impairment].



One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital.

Clay and Harold did not take advantage of California's domestic partnership law and obviously weren't married in the brief time between California's marriage bans.

Instead, and like many older gay and lesbian couples, they relied on having drafted all the other appropriate legal documents naming each other as beneficiaries of their respective estates and agents for medical decisions and the like, so as to protect their wishes and assets in case of an emergency. This should have been enough. Apparently, it wasn't.

The next part of this story is truly heartbreaking and is taken from a separate, more detailed post from the NCLR:

... [While] Harold was hospitalized, Deputy Public Guardians went to the men’s home, took photographs, and commented on the desirability and quality of the furnishings, artwork, and collectibles that the men had collected over their lifetimes.

Ignoring Clay entirely, the County focused on Harold, going so far as to petition the Court for conservatorship of his estate. Outrageously referring to Clay only as a “roommate” and failing to disclose their true relationship, the County continued to treat Harold as if he had no family. The County sought immediate temporary authority to revoke Harold’s powers of attorney, to act without further notice, and to liquidate an investment account to pay for his care.

The court, however, chose to deny that motion, but did grant county officials what the NCLR calls "limited access" to Harold's finances in order to pay for his care. This, it seems, was insufficient. The NCLR goes on:

Then, despite being granted only limited powers and with undue haste, the County arranged for the sale of the men’s personal property, cleaned out their home, terminated their lease, confiscated their truck, and eventually disposed of all of the men’s worldly possessions, including family heirlooms, at a fraction of their value and without any proper inventory or determination of whose property was being sold.

Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from their home and confined him to a nursing home against his will—a different placement from his partner. Clay was kept from seeing Harold during this time, and his telephone calls were limited.

Three months later, Harold died in the nursing home he had been placed in, and Clay, because of the County's actions, could not be at his partner's bedside during those final months. With the exception of but one photo album that Harold had painstakingly put together for Clay during his declining weeks of life, Clay has been left without any of his personal possessions to remind him of the 20-year relationship he shared with Harold as, to date, he has not been able to recover any of the items that were auctioned off.

Clay has reportedly now been released from the nursing home following an appeal by his court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis. Now, Ms. Dennis along with Stephen O'Neill and Margaret Flynn of Tarkington, O'Neill, Barrack & Chong, will be representing Clay in legal action against the County, the auction company and the nursing home, with technical assistance being provided by the NCLR.
A trial date has been set for July 16, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma.

It is perhaps pertinent to note that Sonoma County voted against Proposition 8, California's gay marriage ban, by 66.1 percent in 2008, and that it is largely considered to be a progressive area where LGBT issues are concerned. As such, the emergence of this story serves to highlight the need for Thursday's memorandum, as it demonstrates that instances of discrimination can occur mostly anywhere.

However, President Obama's memorandum grazes only one of the 1138 rights that marriage affords heterosexual couples that are currently denied their same-sex counterparts. As such, the need to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is also brought into stark focus if we are to ensure that same-sex couples are not left vulnerable beyond the narrow focus of Thursday's memorandum.

For more information on end-of-life issues and the legal problems facing older LGBT people, please click here.