Community health workers gathered enthusiastically for the National Community Health Workers Day, hosted by the Ministry of Public Health in Bangkok on March 20 last year. The photo taken by Pattarapong Chatpattarasill captures the vibrant energy of the event.
However, not everything is as cheerful behind the scenes. A proposed bill from the Public Health Ministry has sparked a wave of controversy among village health volunteers nationwide. The bill, open for public comment online until July 11, proposes an age limit of 70, effectively mandating retirement for volunteers upon reaching that age. This change would disrupt the lifetime service terms currently in place.
Opposing voices are loud and clear, especially from the northern province of Chiang Mai, where village health volunteers are preparing to submit a formal letter of opposition to the provincial governor. Similarly, in Khon Kaen, the sentiment is that the proposed age cap is grossly unfair to those who’ve dedicated decades to this critical work, often without any financial backing.
The Department of Health Service Support (DHSS) highlights that the intent of the bill is to bolster the skills necessary for family and community health promotion, officially recognize the volunteers’ status, and ensure they receive adequate benefits. A key feature of the bill includes the formation of a panel chaired by the public health permanent secretary, tasked with promoting and supporting the volunteers’ work. Additionally, a fund will be established to aid their endeavors.
Currently, there are about one million health volunteers across the country, forming the backbone of family and community health security. Their role in the community cannot be overstated, and it’s this very crucial contribution that they are fighting to protect.
Ketsarin Saengsawat, a health volunteer in Khon Kaen, expressed her displeasure with the age limit proposal. “It’s simply not fair to the older volunteers who started long before there were any monthly allowances,” she stated. “If the age limit were applied solely to new volunteers, it would be more acceptable. But those already serving should be allowed to continue their work for life or until they choose to resign.”
Ketsarin also pointed out that volunteering has become more appealing in recent years, thanks to the introduction of a 2,000 baht monthly allowance and an increase in the funeral welfare fund from 150,000 baht to 540,000 baht.
Another dedicated health volunteer from Khon Kaen, Ura Prapmontri, weighed in, arguing that age is not a barrier. “Many older volunteers have adapted to digital technology just fine. But if an age limit must be set, 80 years old seems more reasonable,” she said. “Retiring now would be unjust for those dependent on the monthly stipend for household expenses and debt management.”
Treechada Srithada, spokeswoman for the Ministry of Public Health, mentioned that the age limit would not apply to current volunteers when the law comes into effect. Nonetheless, they must register within one year post-enactment, or their service will be terminated. She urged all concerned parties to voice their opinions during the public hearing phase, assuring that these inputs will be considered before the bill is finalized and submitted to the cabinet.
The debate surrounding this bill illuminates the deep respect and dependence communities have on their health volunteers. As the public hearing continues, it remains to be seen how these passionate voices will shape the final legislation.
This age limit proposal is ridiculous. These volunteers are the heart of our healthcare system!
I agree, Chai. Some volunteers are way more effective than younger ones. Age shouldn’t matter if they’re still performing well.
But isn’t there a point when health issues become too much? Shouldn’t we have a policy for when they need to retire for their own good?
Let’s not forget that the ministry is also considering their ability to adapt to new methods and technologies. Skills do erode over time.
Seriously, older volunteers understand the community best. Losing them would be a huge blow.
Age should be a case-by-case basis. Some eighty-year-old volunteers are more capable than those in their fifties!
I think the stipend increases and welfare fund changes are just a way to control the volunteers. It’s all politics!
Typical conspiracy theory. These benefits make the volunteer work more sustainable.
Maybe it’s both? Incentivizing healthcare service but also keeping them reliant on the system.
It’s better than nothing though. At least it acknowledges their contributions.
I don’t get why they can’t just let existing volunteers continue. It seems fair to only apply the age limit to new volunteers.
The elderly volunteers can’t perform as efficiently. New regulations should push for younger, more competitive applicants.
Efficiency isn’t everything. Experience and community ties matter a lot, especially in healthcare.
It’s not like volunteers are being paid a fortune. They’re doing it because they care. We should respect that.
How about a compromise? Gradually phase out older volunteers while training the younger ones?
Totally disagree. Older volunteers are the backbone of our community health. Kicking them out would be a disaster.
But what if replacements can’t be found in time? That’s risky too.
Then the transition should be smoother and more planned. Not just a sudden cut-off.
Quality control in healthcare is crucial. Perhaps mandatory training refreshers would be a better solution?
That sounds more logical than an arbitrary age limit. Keeps everyone up-to-date.
Training is great, but would the government fund it consistently? Doubtful.
Good point. A combined approach: training with respect for experience.
Many older volunteers are still very active and tech-savvy. It’s unfair to generalize based on age.
Exactly. If someone can’t keep up, it would be noticeable and can be dealt with individually.
Digital fluency shouldn’t be the only metric for their effectiveness.
We should be looking for ways to encourage more people to volunteer regardless of their age, not limiting them.
Yes, the focus should be on volunteer support, not restrictions.
If an age cap is really necessary, maybe 75 or 80 years old would be more reasonable.
The bill’s intention is good, but it needs better execution. Maybe extend the age cap and include voluntary exit options.
We need both young and old volunteers. Diversity in age brings diverse perspectives and skills.
Transparent public hearings and active participation from volunteers will be critical in ensuring the bill meets everyone’s needs.
Agreed. The more voices, the better the final result.
Bah, public hearings are just for show. Decisions are made behind closed doors.
Let’s hope that’s not true. Every voice matters.
It baffles me that they’re focusing on an age limit instead of improving working conditions and better support for volunteers.
It’s important to respect the legacy and contribution of senior volunteers while evolving the system for the future.
Yes, let’s not throw away decades of dedication at the stroke of a pen.