4000 people die within 6 weeks of being deemed "Fit to Work"

[crankedup]

Jasandjules said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

One day when your health is failing you may well reconsider that. Or if you suddenly get ill - happens a lot, you might be surprised.

To me, the bullying and hatred of the disabled is no better than a member of the BNP who hates a black person - a disabled person can not help being ill, the same way a person can not help the colour of their skin.

Agreed 100%, only blithering idiots make statements such as the one you reply to. For me its very easy to pick out numbnuts that have yet to be affected by tragedy within the family. Wouldn't wish this on any person but when it happens it generally focuses the minds of those affected into positive thoughts and actions.

[Martin4x4]

Flip Martian said:

Quite frankly the official statistics could say "we have evidence that 4000 died as a direct result of being forced back to work" and some in here would still cheer and see that as a positive. Some of the comments in here are quite vile, even by the standards of PH.

Is that caused by or correlated with fasciitis?

They certainly get under my skin and cause me irritation.

[spaximus]

It's difficult to know who chooses to do what. For instance, working in the field that I do I see very different expectations from life from young disabled people than I do from older. There's an interesting case story in 'The Man who mistook his wife for a hat' of an older woman with cerebral palsy who didn't use her arms. Turns out there was nothing wrong with them, it's just that no-one had expected her to do anything for herself.

So the problem there is a professional who has failed the person and as a result perhaps stopped any improvement.

That leaves us though with a group of people who might be found "fit for work" who are psychologically unprepared by a lifetime of different expectations. That seems like a minor thing, but it concerns me.

It is a concern to me also. Again to me a common thread that seems to run through many things is a lack of common sense by those charged with doing a job. It is no good just cutting people off without some support to aid them back to work. Where we have long term sick Doctors now seem to send them back asking for amended duties, which our company do every time if we can as people need a hand occasionally.

There's a couple of things at play here. It's fun to kick the people who are carrying out the reforms, I'd agree. I wouldn't have expected much better from any party in govt. What has happened here though is that people were put on IB (now ESA) for political reasons - it kept them off the unemployment statistics. I'm very well, but have a disability, left university and went to the jobcentre and was told to claim IB. I refused, but someone else might have accepted that this was the correct advice. They weren't really swinging the lead if they had, were they?

Again bad advice from those employed which could have led to you never working and becoming dependent on the system

I honestly do not know anyone who wants to see people starving and people forced from a sick bed to work, but there are hundreds of jobs that some disabled people can do as well as able bodied if not better, so why not take those off the disability list.
Being obese should not be a disability and get them more than someone who has worked and is now on the JSA.

It's too easy to not see the real story though. My future FIL is now a bit overweight, but he wasn't when the rheumatoid arthritis started. Statistics about obesity claims don't clear up if they're secondary - a consequence. Immobile people often put on weight. It's really difficult to see the stories behind the statistics.

Agreed, however, in the case of you FIL his disability is not being obese, if being obese was not classed as a disability on it's own then it would be easier for those whose weight is a secondary problem to not be lumped in falsely

I'd agree that lots of disabled people can, and should, and in many cases want, work. Kicking some of them off benefits isn't the only part of this story though. Although I'm very well, I'm also quite lucky to work for a very disability friendly organisation - it helps when I can work from home and decide my own hours, gives me the room to do treatments as I work, and occasionally even work from hospital. Not many employers can, or want to, manage this.

It is changing as attitudes to disability workers has developed a more positive face. Since the Para Olympics showed what people can do and that being in a wheelchair does not make a person stupid or lazy automatically, then organisation do not see the problems they once did. Access to all new buildings is also improved which was a major problem before.

But back to the main story, it is being whipped up by some that these people have died due to them being declared fit for work, the implication that these deaths would not have occurred if they had not been told to work.

That's not the implication at all. The question is - if people died within two weeks of being found fit to work, should they have been found fit to work? Undoubtedly, people do die suddenly, regardless of their health status, but is 2,380 more than you'd expect?


Look on facebook and see how many have made that link and are posting on to others. Rational people would not make the link with out some very detailed investigations. Those people who died within two weeks is sad and their families may feel it was the cause, but the reality is without facts on what caused those deaths there is no correlation.

When you operate a system of box ticking genuine people will fall foul of the system.

[Ahimoth]

We're not miles apart. I'd say that expectations are an institutional thing - it wasn't just professionals, but the families had often been told things like "go home and forget about her, she'll never amount to anything" (direct quote from a doctor given to the parents of someone now in her 60s)

I'm still encountering parents being told that their child will never walk, or communicate etc, when the basis for this assessment is 10mins with a CT scan.

The ESA/IB thing is a dreadful political mess, the Tories blamed Labour for manipulating employment figures with it, so something had to be done. The whole thing actually started in the 80s, but it was the early 2000s when I could have fallen in to it. So we've had perhaps 20yrs of it.

Idiots on FB on show just how many cranks there are out there. People like me, professionals in this area, are waiting to see what these figures actually mean. We know already that the assessment process has been a mess.

[Fishtigua]

An interesting article from 18 months ago saying the same thing. Also the 2000 people who died while waiting to be told they were fit for work.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/why-did-the-gove...

[otolith]

I don't think the probability of someone dying soon is part of the assessment of whether they are capable of working for a living, in which case you can't really criticise the assessment for not picking it up.

Perhaps we should be thinking about how we treat people who are near to the end of their life quite separately from how we think about disability and capacity to work. If you find out at fifty that you've got less than a year to live, you may well remain capable of staying in work for some more months, but it's not likely that you will want to. If you have a private pension you may be able to cash some of that out, if you've just been paying into the state scheme all your life you may feel a little cheated of your retirement. Perhaps we could treat those people better?

[crankedup]

johnfm said:

crankedup said:

Sheepshanks said:

crankedup said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Just as long as they don't clock out whilst working on your business premises eh. Can't imagine the H&S implications of that, nightmare scenario.

Drag 'em to the kerb and say they must have died while running away.

You can't do that!! why half the idiots in this PH club reckon these people are nothing but fat scum, far to weighty to drag anywhere. Beggars belief what can be said in the knowledge of virtual world non morality. Likely in the real world some of the worst offenders are under the thumb, all day every day at work living out a humdrum existence feeling the need to exercise some frustration through the keyboard.

If you don't like or agree with 'half the idiots' on PH you could just stop reading and posting here. It isn't mandatory.

Not disagreeing with my POV regarding SOME of the posters reactions is a start. Walking away solves nothing, this is a forum for exchange of POV, IT'S THE CRASSNESS OF some posters comments which I find offensive. I do agree that the journo' comments are inflammatory perhaps partially baseless, that's journ's work, to draw attention to a story, or non story dependant on one's POV,that's worthy of further investigation.

[crankedup]

otolith said:

I don't think the probability of someone dying soon is part of the assessment of whether they are capable of working for a living, in which case you can't really criticise the assessment for not picking it up.

Perhaps we should be thinking about how we treat people who are near to the end of their life quite separately from how we think about disability and capacity to work. If you find out at fifty that you've got less than a year to live, you may well remain capable of staying in work for some more months, but it's not likely that you will want to. If you have a private pension you may be able to cash some of that out, if you've just been paying into the state scheme all your life you may feel a little cheated of your retirement. Perhaps we could treat those people better?

Your first para is incorrect, people who have a diagnosed terminal illness were included within the tick box, cancer related illnesses included.

Your second para picks up pertinent points, those identified as terminally ill, should they be told 'go back to work' or should we as a Society show a little compassion and allow those people their last months time to be with their families whilst supported by their owns means and topped up by the State.
This is one of the major issues that the previous tick box assessment which was so badly thought through and introduced, thankfully now revised somewhat.

[otolith]

crankedup said:

otolith said:

I don't think the probability of someone dying soon is part of the assessment of whether they are capable of working for a living, in which case you can't really criticise the assessment for not picking it up.

Perhaps we should be thinking about how we treat people who are near to the end of their life quite separately from how we think about disability and capacity to work. If you find out at fifty that you've got less than a year to live, you may well remain capable of staying in work for some more months, but it's not likely that you will want to. If you have a private pension you may be able to cash some of that out, if you've just been paying into the state scheme all your life you may feel a little cheated of your retirement. Perhaps we could treat those people better?

Your first para is incorrect, people who have a diagnosed terminal illness were included within the tick box, cancer related illnesses included.

Your second para picks up pertinent points, those identified as terminally ill, should they be told 'go back to work' or should we as a Society show a little compassion and allow those people their last months time to be with their families whilst supported by their owns means and topped up by the State.
This is one of the major issues that the previous tick box assessment which was so badly thought through and introduced, thankfully now revised somewhat.

So are you saying that if you have a terminal diagnosis, the box will be ticked and you will automatically be deemed "unfit for work"?

[Ahimoth]

If a doctor has completed the form that describes you as being reasonably expected to die within 5-10 months, yes it's then a special rules situation.

Edited by Ahimoth on Friday 28th August 11:52

[otolith]

So having already excluded from the process anyone who has already been medically identified as likely to die within the next six months, what assessment of impending mortality is missing from the "Fit To Work" definition?

[crankedup]

otolith said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

I don't think the probability of someone dying soon is part of the assessment of whether they are capable of working for a living, in which case you can't really criticise the assessment for not picking it up.

Perhaps we should be thinking about how we treat people who are near to the end of their life quite separately from how we think about disability and capacity to work. If you find out at fifty that you've got less than a year to live, you may well remain capable of staying in work for some more months, but it's not likely that you will want to. If you have a private pension you may be able to cash some of that out, if you've just been paying into the state scheme all your life you may feel a little cheated of your retirement. Perhaps we could treat those people better?

Your first para is incorrect, people who have a diagnosed terminal illness were included within the tick box, cancer related illnesses included.

Your second para picks up pertinent points, those identified as terminally ill, should they be told 'go back to work' or should we as a Society show a little compassion and allow those people their last months time to be with their families whilst supported by their owns means and topped up by the State.
This is one of the major issues that the previous tick box assessment which was so badly thought through and introduced, thankfully now revised somewhat.

So are you saying that if you have a terminal diagnosis, the box will be ticked and you will automatically be deemed "unfit for work"?

For me that's what is/was wrong with the whole 'tick box' methodology and the framing of the questions.
Terminal illness should, IMO, exclude the patient from further stress and anxiety of having to attend interviews and the pressure which comes with that. Of course some will perhaps want to work and in these situations should be assisted back into work via a Medical professional, where that is possible. It simply highlit the aggressive non caring badly thought through irrelevance of a rotten system which has taken far to long to resolve, or at least work toward that.
Nobody wants to see people 'swinging the lead' including me, I pay tax as well. The ATOS system was dreadful though.

[otolith]

So these are the rules for terminal illness, which to be honest don't look unreasonable to me.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/sick-or...

Tick-boxes are what you get when you want decisions to be fair and objective and thus hard to argue with. I don't really see how you can get away from them in this sort of thing. If an assessment is just "In my professional opinion this claimant is fit for work" any appeal is going to result in their assessment being boiled down to a set of objective statements anyway.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

woowahwoo said:

johnfm said:

crankedup said:

Sheepshanks said:

crankedup said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Just as long as they don't clock out whilst working on your business premises eh. Can't imagine the H&S implications of that, nightmare scenario.

Drag 'em to the kerb and say they must have died while running away.

You can't do that!! why half the idiots in this PH club reckon these people are nothing but fat scum, far to weighty to drag anywhere. Beggars belief what can be said in the knowledge of virtual world non morality. Likely in the real world some of the worst offenders are under the thumb, all day every day at work living out a humdrum existence feeling the need to exercise some frustration through the keyboard.

If you don't like or agree with 'half the idiots' on PH you could just stop reading and posting here. It isn't mandatory.

...but it may be if you need to maintain a superiority sensibility

In passing, this Lord D comment came to mind (my emphasis).

Labour Luvvie Lord Donoughue said:

With the collapse of Marxism, there was created a vacuum on the left. Those seeking an ideological faith to cling on to for moral certainty felt bereft. They also wanted a faith which again gave them a feeling of still pursuing the common good of society, especially the new global society, and even more a feeling of moral superiority which is a characteristic of many middle and professional types on the left.

Feeling not factual, so typical.

Moral high ground! not from me, I take a normal balanced POV on most subjects. The problem arises from SOME posters who are bereft of the basic morals of life posting vile OTT comments laden with vitrol that one has to wonder if these people are actually sane.

[crankedup]

otolith said:

So these are the rules for terminal illness, which to be honest don't look unreasonable to me.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/sick-or...

Tick-boxes are what you get when you want decisions to be fair and objective and thus hard to argue with. I don't really see how you can get away from them in this sort of thing. If an assessment is just "In my professional opinion this claimant is fit for work" any appeal is going to result in their assessment being boiled down to a set of objective statements anyway.

I completely disagree with your assertion that 'tick boxes' are fair and objective. They are not when in the context of health judgements. Not even in most scenarios are tick boxes relevant in as much as the question framing can be misleading. Are you suggesting that a professional medical opinion is less important than a tick box yes/no piece of paper? Many did earlier in the assessment processes, hence the criticism and the need for Government to re-formulate the process.
Is this what it comes down to, some pin stripe deciding a professional doctor is wrong? Lord help us.

[otolith]

crankedup said:

otolith said:

So these are the rules for terminal illness, which to be honest don't look unreasonable to me.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/sick-or...

Tick-boxes are what you get when you want decisions to be fair and objective and thus hard to argue with. I don't really see how you can get away from them in this sort of thing. If an assessment is just "In my professional opinion this claimant is fit for work" any appeal is going to result in their assessment being boiled down to a set of objective statements anyway.

I completely disagree with your assertion that 'tick boxes' are fair and objective. They are not when in the context of health judgements. Not even in most scenarios are tick boxes relevant in as much as the question framing can be misleading. Are you suggesting that a professional medical opinion is less important than a tick box yes/no piece of paper? Many did earlier in the assessment processes, hence the criticism and the need for Government to re-formulate the process.
Is this what it comes down to, some pin stripe deciding a professional doctor is wrong? Lord help us.

The checkboxes should be the facts that a professional doctor would consider the basis for the decision - or do you think that if a doctor says you are fit for work and you appeal, he should just smugly point to his medical degree and say "because I say so"? No, he would be asked (and be able) to justify it with a set of objective facts.

[mph1977]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

PIP /DLA are in OR out of work benefits ...

ESA is an out of work benefit ...

[anonymous-user]

Do we know the mortality rate of people actually in work? It sould seem an entirely pointless discussion without it.

[Ahimoth]

mph1977 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

PIP /DLA are in OR out of work benefits ...

ESA is an out of work benefit ...

That always gets lost. Quite a lot of Paralympians would have been on some form of benefit. Not sure what the question is getting at.

fbim - yes, that's precisely what is being said in this thread. We don't know what the figures actually mean. Good to see Goldacre weigh in.

[turbobloke]

Martin4x4 said:

A compentator on Radio 4 said this was '4 times' the rate for working age adults, Still rather vague but certainly enough to warrant further reporting and elaboration.

Is that an apt comparison?

In the above case, those who have been signed off who then returned to work of their own volition would be a bit better as a comparison group.

What warrants further investigation is the abysmal level of partisan journalism on offer, and the quality of education in general when so many people swallow it.