A fund to save the lives of critically ill children is a policy no one could reasonably object to. However, that is why accountability is especially important.
In piloting the Children鈥檚 Life Fund (Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Senate last Monday, Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of the People, Social Development and Family Services Natalie Chaitan-Maharaj said, 鈥淭hese amendments seek to -ensure that the Children鈥檚 Life Fund saves the life of even the most critically ill child so that no young soul is allowed to slip through the cracks of bureaucracy.鈥
She went on to tell the story of baby Miracle Cross, born with heart disease, who died in 2016 while funds were still being processed; and 14-year-old Tristan Ramlochan, who had acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and died in 2022 while awaiting -approval from the fund.
These stories were intended to justify the authority given to the Health Minister to review applications rejected by the Life Fund committee and other amendments meant to fix bureaucratic delays. So, the bill clarifies the board鈥檚 powers to approve or reject applications since, according to Health Minister Dr Lackram Bodoe, the previous act limited 鈥渢he board in terms of what they can do and what they cannot do鈥. The cohort of children qualifying for assistance has been widened by adding 鈥渓ife-limiting illnesses鈥 instead of only life-threatening ones.
However, that expanded criteria means a heavier workload, which logically increases bureaucratic requirements. Moreover, the hard fact is that the Life Fund committee, even if less constrained, will still have hard decisions to make. Available assistance has been increased beyond the previous $1 million limit, but this actually means expenditure must be even more rigorous.
The core criteria should remain straightforward: the family must be unable to afford the treatment, the child is at risk of death or permanent injury, and the required procedures have a reasonable chance of success. These metrics are not changed by the minister having additional authority under the new -legislation.
If the previous problem was bureaucracy, then the solution is to cut red tape without sacrificing transparency. The Children鈥檚 Life Fund is politically bulletproof. Opposition politicians, and even independent critics, would hesitate to call for accountability for fear of seeming to put more value on money than children鈥檚 lives. But that is exactly why such programmes are most vulnerable to waste and corruption.
The fiscal fact is that, if monies are not efficiently allocated, more sick children will die or become disabled. Money spent on a child whose family can pay for medical procedures, or who has a condition with a poor prognosis, or has access to key -officials means less money for poor children who would survive and thrive if given the proper treatment.
Legislation by itself will not fix the bureaucratic barriers that previously resulted in children鈥檚 deaths. The problem is a managerial one. Solving that requires that a board whose members are appointed for their expertise, integrity, and spines, not because they are friends, family or financiers of the party in power.