rosieadamson Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 can this government sink any lower !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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. I think Conrod would rather force somebody to work, than recover and see their family. He'd not let a cancer patient have a xmas day off if he were ever an employer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Who else knows if they are fit for work? You'd need a healthcare professional for that ... hence, undergoing a benefit check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 It's a similar story to people judged 'fit for work' by gvt box tickers. Yes someone may be fit for work on the day they are assessed but people still have off days, off weeks even. If you are deemed unfit for work by your GP then that should be that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolli_pop Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 You'd need a healthcare professional for that ... hence, undergoing a benefit check. It's a question of how the check is to be carried out though, isn't it? There are serious acknowledged issues with how ESA assessments are carried out. Some people may sail through chemotherapy with minimal side effects; others are not so lucky and subjecting them to an assessment process which is likely, by design, to deny them benefit until reinstated on appeal seems rather cruel to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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. you are clearly an inspiration to anyone battling with cancer,inasmuch as you are giving hope to many cancer sufferers who may be longing to return to a normal way of life after undergoing cancer treatment.i'm sure most will hope to return to work if they are fit enough to do so,but even if recovery is complete not every one will be strong enough mentally to deal with the after effects. i really don't think the goverment has thought this through properly.it could not be fairly operated.assessments would have to be ongoing and would add further pain worry and suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted December 5, 2011 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. does that apply to carers who decide they dont want to work even if they can ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 does that apply to carers who decide they dont want to work even if they can ? Wouldn't a carer, by definition, be unable to work because they were caring for someone? But in any event, yes. Benefits are for people unable to work - whether ill, caring for someone full-time, or unable to find a job despite looking. People who are unwilling to work, should not qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 It's a question of how the check is to be carried out though, isn't it? Not in this topic. The OP is fairly explicit in his argument that anyone diagnosed with cancer should be automatically entitled to benefit no matter how it affects their ability to work. The flaws in the checking system should be resolved, but that's irrelevant to the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Wouldn't a carer, by definition, be unable to work because they were caring for someone? But in any event, yes. Benefits are for people unable to work - whether ill, caring for someone full-time, or unable to find a job despite looking. People who are unwilling to work, should not qualify. so someone not willing to work could easily pass themselves off as a carer for a friend/relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.