Neglect followed by neglect

WE WELCOME Lackram Bodoe’s assurance that he will review the case of Davyn Ragoo, 8, and his family, who have been battling the state in court just to get the medical support he deserves.

In response to a front-page article in this newspaper on December 28, the health minister pledged to look into the case, which saw the state, despite a successful claim brought by the child’s mother, threaten to appeal the case.

It’s bad enough that Kavita Ramkissoon-Ragoo had to sue to get the government’s attention when it comes to the needs of her son, one of a group of children born with microcephaly caused by the Zika virus in 2017.

But it’s worse that, having successfully won that watershed case in which Justice Joan Charles found the state at fault for not taking steps to provide appropriate medical treatment and support, the administration of the day said it was going to appeal.

It never did.

And the matter was left hanging over suffering citizens’ heads.

In effect, the neglect of not helping the child was followed by the neglect of leaving the matter in a legal hinterland for years, while little Davyn grew up.

Dr Bodoe and the legal team that will look into the matter have made no decision. We’ve yet to get word on when his review will take place, how long it will run and what its outcome might be.

But the UNC minister’s commitment to looking into the case acknowledges two separate but crucial needs.

The first is for a better range of healthcare services.

It’s not just the class of people who may have succumbed to Zika and its complex complications. It’s also any family that has members with special needs. Impossible is it for Dr Bodoe to fix all the state’s healthcare deficiencies overnight. But addressing the former would, at the very least, signal commitment to addressing the latter in the long run, instilling confidence in a beleaguered system. Zika has been an issue since 2017.

The second need is for a complete realignment of the litigation policies and standards within the Ministry of the Attorney General with the requirements of public-facing government ministries.

We don’t deny the state needs to pinch pennies when it comes to shelling out damages or investing more resources in services. The floodgates might be opened.

Yet, why are so many cases, in which citizens have been suffering, frequently challenged in court?

Is that how the state imagines it’s upholding the social contract?

We salute Ms Ramkissoon-Ragoo, who, like so many parents, has had to fight tooth and claw to secure the interest of her child.

Sadly, she’s not alone. That’s why Dr Bodoe’s timely review matters.