LHis refrain is always the same: Are you “for” or “against”? This is state medical assistance (AME). Here too we should have a clear opinion: for or against? A question that the majority of nursing staff do not ask themselves in this form.

So, faced with the serious political problems of today, we look for a compromise and find an equally old remedy from an old hat: Convert state care to emergency careas if one vowel were enough not to lose the soul, 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 an emergency today? We know full well that in the event of an acute accident, an undocumented migrant or a priest will benefit from the same care. In that moment. But in the post-immediacy, once “relieved,” things here shift, putting, whatever we do, whatever we say, the most vulnerable to the “emergencies” in an endless tango—one step forward, two Steps back: secondary infections, anxiety, somatic side effects, exhaustion, need for bed…

Bad exams

So many situations, characteristic of a hellish no-man’s land between social and medical, that undermine the dignity of carers and social workers because they are confronted with their mistakes day after day: no beds, no aftercare places, no space.

With the abolition of the AME, emergencies would once again pay the price for this lack of thinking, which would only lead to the endless queue of people without social identity in their premises becoming even larger. -Fixed. Is that what we want?

A draft is reported here, and the misuse of these devices is reported elsewhere. Should we then, in the name of these bad processes, withdraw care from people who live in France in a severely impaired physical and psychological state? Many of them have children in French compulsory school: is it really a good idea to withdraw childcare from parents?

Extremely saturated institutions

For ? Against ? This binary system, which aims to be transparent and clear in the way it asks questions – and, worse, answers them – hides another, much more worrying problem: the health of the public health system and its ability to keep going receiving more patients, in extremely saturated facilities.

You still have 30% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.