Conrod Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 This is the main point. Some people can cope with the stress more readily than others. And importantly this will be difficult to assess... I don't think the government intends to send scaffolders climbing the side of buildings when undergoing treatment either...It'll effect white collar workers the most I think.. Perhaps those who let themselves fall under stress would be better kept occupied than wallowing in self pity at home. Expanding on that - work might be the best therapy in plenty of cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 Perhaps those who let themselves fall under stress would be better kept occupied than wallowing in self pity at home. Expanding on that - work might be the best therapy in plenty of cases. I wouldn't disagree with that. But if they don't feel up to it then they should have the choice. It should be their choice. We all have to refer to sources and inspiration for our opinion. I refer you to MacMillan for mine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Perhaps those who let themselves fall under stress would be better kept occupied than wallowing in self pity at home. Expanding on that - work might be the best therapy in plenty of cases. I think that it's outrageous personally and being forced to work could have a very detrimental effect on one's response to treatment and recovery. Work I imagine would be the best therapy in a tiny minority of cases and that would depend largely upon the nature of the job. If their job were really stressful and they hated it, then it would be the worst place for them to be. A tailored exercise programme would be far better therapy. I heard recently that the benefits of regular exercise whilst undergoing cancer treatments vastly reduce the risk of the cancer recurring and enhance the effects of the treatment. It is highly unlikely that someone undergoing chemo and/or radiotrherapy will be able to work and exercise. Furthermore, a cancer patient with a young family needs to conserve all their physical and emotional energy to deal with the demands of their children as well as cushion the devastating impact that a life threatening illness has on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 ... and what does the report actually say? "Individuals undergoing treatment for cancer 31. Professor Harrington asked Macmillan Cancer Support, in conjunction with a number of other cancer charities, to assess whether there were improvements that could be made to the provisions for people who were undergoing treatment for cancer. During July 2011, the Department received evidence from Macmillan which was endorsed by Professor Harrington. 32. The Department accepts the evidence presented by Macmillan that the effects of oral chemotherapy can be as debilitating as other types of chemotherapy. The evidence also shows that certain types of radiotherapy and in particular of combined chemo-irradiation can be equally debilitating. As a result of the evidence supplied by Macmillan, the Department has developed detailed proposals for changing the way we assess individuals being treated for cancer. 33. If introduced, these proposals would increase the number of individuals being treated for cancer going into the Support Group. They would also reduce the number of face-to-face assessments for people being treated for cancer as most assessments could be done on a paper basis, based on evidence presented by a GP or treating healthcare professional. 34. We had hoped to introduce these proposals in April 2012. However, following detailed discussions with Macmillan, we have been unable to secure their support to our proposals which were based on their evidence. 35. As a result, the Department now intends to seek a wider range of views on the proposed changes through an informal consultation. We wish to gather views of interested stakeholders, including individuals affected by cancer, their families and carers, employers, healthcare practitioners and cancer specialists as well as other representative groups. We will launch this consultation during December 2011. ......" http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wca-review-2011-response.pdf So please participate in the consultation, either via MacMillan or wherever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 Perhaps those who let themselves fall under stress would be better kept occupied than wallowing in self pity at home. Expanding on that - work might be the best therapy in plenty of cases. You can't let yourself "fall under stress." Its an illness like anything else. Its like saying they shouldn't let themselves fall under flu.. There may be some who swing the lead in relation to stress in more general terms but to punish those who really are suffering is cruel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 what are this goverment thinking about with this proposal ? surely they must listen to the expertise of the MacMillan team,who are opposing the proposal. this goverment' lack of compassion and understanding on this issue is beyond my comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 what are this goverment thinking about with this proposal ? surely they must listen to the expertise of the MacMillan team,who are opposing the proposal. this goverment' lack of compassion and understanding on this issue is beyond my comprehension. There's much debate about the reasoning, the financial aspects etc. But basically, the government are thick.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 That's fair enough that was you're choice. So long as others have the choice, that's fine. They want to take away the choice though.. There isn't supposed to be a choice. People who are fit for work cannot simply decide they don't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Perhaps not, however, I am not sure that quisquose is the norm, in this respect. I don't know a single person who has had cancer treatment who was not totally wiped out by chemotherapy. Furthermore, it's not just the physical effects of the treatments and the disease itself, it has an enormous emotional and psychological impact which alone may affect someone's ability to do their job. Then there are the effects of surgery, which can take weeks to recover from. But there are all sorts of different factors at play, including survival chances, the treatment, and long term effects of the illness and the treatment. I just fail to see why the word "cancer" means the patients of this disease should be treated any differently to patients with different diseases when it comes to benefits. There are all sorts of different cancers, with a variety of survival rates and horribleness of treatments: http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0000Jr Frank might think I deserved a Blue Peter badge, but the attitude to get on with life wherever possible is definitely the most common one imho. However, I fail to see why somebody diagnosed with a cancer with almost 100% survival probability, receiving chemotherapy with few side effects, should be unable to work, or off limits from questions if they apply for benefits. My survival chances were put at 85% so I was always optimistic, and although the treatment was horrible, I felt that to apply for some of the benefits that I was told I was entitled to was a fraud, so I didn't. As with everything in life, most people give and take, whilst some people only take. If we are not allowed to question the integrity of cancer patients simply because, well, err, it's cancer, it's taboo, then the latter will take advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 There isn't supposed to be a choice. People who are fit for work cannot simply decide they don't want to. Who else knows if they are fit for work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.