The Ministry of Finance published its official statement Luota tulevaan (‘Trust in the future’) in October. In their statement, the Ministry asks what a future welfare state, built within the constraints of public finances, might look like.
We need to discuss the future of the welfare state. However, this debate must not be reduced to the question of how much social care and health care we can afford to provide, and which standards might be relaxed in order to deliver the services.
First, we should ask a much more fundamental question: what kind of social and health care system do we want to safeguard in Finland? Do we want a system where we can all receive safe, high-quality care when we fall ill? Where an elderly person can trust to receive the care they need? A system where the treatment and care of patients or clients is based on the expertise of trained professionals?
These questions are about the values of the welfare state, not just the costs.
Standard is not a four-letter word
The desire to reassess standards is particularly noteworthy in the Ministry of Finance’s proposals on social and health care. Factors such as staffing levels, deadlines and qualification and eligibility criteria are raised for discussion.
From the perspective of a social and health care professional, the list does not immediately inspire confidence in the future. In public debate, social and health care standards are often referred to as a burden: something that increases costs, makes operations less flexible and prevents things from being done more efficiently.
But ‘standard’ is not a four-letter word.
When legislation sets out requirements for the eligibility, qualifications or level of staff, the aim is not to make social and health care as expensive or as difficult to organise as possible. These regulations help ensure that anyone caring for a sick or an elderly person, a child or anyone else in need of care has the skills needed for their role.
And this is why – before we abolish any standards – we must be able to answer the question ‘what does this standard safeguard?’
Trained professional – an expense or a guarantee of safety?
It would be particularly problematic if the dismantling of standards related to personnel were to become, first and foremost, a way to reduce labour costs.
