Lhe refrain is always the same: are you “for” or “against”? This is state medical aid (AME). Once again, we should have a clear opinion: for, or against? A question that the majority of caregivers do not ask themselves in this form.
So, faced with the serious political issues of the moment, we are looking for a compromise and we are pulling out of an old hat a no less old remedy: transforming state care into emergency care, as if all it took was a vowel so as not to lose your soul, going from the state “E” to the emergency “U” [dans le cadre de l’examen du projet de loi sur l’immigration, le Sénat a adopté un article supprimant l’AME et créant une « aide médicale d’urgence » (AMU) plus restrictive].
But what is emergency today? We know well that, in the event of an acute accident, an undocumented migrant or a minister will benefit from the same care. In the moment. But in the post-immediacy, once “relieved”, this is where things shift and will bring, whatever we do, whatever we say, the most vulnerable towards the “emergencies” in a endless tango – one step forward, two steps back: secondary infections, anxiety, collateral somatic effects, exhaustion, need for a bed…
Poor trials
So many situations, characteristic of an infernal no man’s land between the social and the medical, which stifle the dignity of caregivers and social workers, by dint of being confronted day after day with their failures: no beds, no aftercare places, no space.
With the abolition of the AME, emergencies, once again, would pay the price for this non-thinking, which would only serve to increase the endless queue of people without social identity in their premises. -fixed. Is this what we want?
We are told here of a draft, elsewhere of misuse of these devices. Should we then, in the name of these poor trials, deprive care of human beings living in France in highly degraded physical and psychiatric states? Many of them have children in compulsory French school: is depriving their parents of care really a good idea?
Extremely saturated institutions
For ? Against ? This binary, which aims to be transparent and clear in the way of asking questions – and, worse, answering them – hides another problem, much more worrying: the state of health of the public health system and its capacity to receive, again and again, more patients, in extremely saturated institutions.
You have 30% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.