Hi Prasanthi/Suresh,
Thanks for triggering this very powerful stream of brainstorming.
This has been a raging flame recently about how LN and Divena cases and
possible Paparao case have stretched the group's resources and group's
commitment has been misused. I understand that this is hurtful for all
involved. But, if we choose to look beyond our emotions, this is a wonderful
opportunity for the group to stabilize in terms of medical field service.
Why?
The limitations of the guidelines document has been heavily exposed
by these cases. Though it is a very good document, we now realize that
there's a lot more that can be added. Specifically what needs to be added is
the human interface which Prasanthi talked about ... such as
* how does a volunteer talk to the family having the medical
condition
* what does a volunteer do when patient/patient's family is asking
for emotional support
- related to this, how can a "buddy" volunteer who is not on the
field at the moment, support the volunteer who is on the field?
* what does the lead volunteer on the case do, when the patient's
family is asking for additional resources/financial support?
* when accepting a case, what should the group look beyond what the
family is asking for?
- the family wouldn't be thinking much about the patient's
extended stay in hospital before treatment (logistics arrangement phase) and
after treatment (recovery phase) ?
* what should the group do, so that the emotional "bond" that was
created over the duration of the case, can be slowly but powerfully broken,
so that the group isn't left with the responsibility of dealing with the
patients and their families, long after their recovery?
A discussion along these lines would be helpful for bringing a sense
of focus to this group.
Cheers!
Karthik
