pottedplant Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 It's the able bit that is so important. I think the government interpretation of it is too skewed towards physical capability whereas for many illnesses the psycholgical impact could be what makes somebody a potentially viable member of the workforce or not. I know cancer is always an emotive illness but some of the rules seem set to punish people for not having bad enough cancer, and to me that is a very bizarre situation. Cancer does not always have to be emotive. For some it is a 30 min removal of a skin lesion and that is it -for others it is Stage 4 terminal lung cancer . They are very different illnesses and should be judged as such. Some really are not so bad at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Professor MALCOM HARRINGTON has resigned his post. Whether forcefully or not, I guess we'll never know. If people are going to be assessed it shouldn't be to a set of targets. He resigned because his allocated 3 assessment terms were up and someone else then takes over, not forced out at all. I believe he also was very critical of the way assessments were done and said they were flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff1johnny Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Where does that stop though...whatabout someone who broke their back playing rugby or similar..is that self inflicted..or how about someone who was paralysed through a car crash that was their fault.. etc.etc..? there has to be a sensible limit. alcholics, and drug addicts are unemployable, and it is a small soluition that would save a little money, and give them less money to spend on their vices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 there has to be a sensible limit. alcholics, and drug addicts are unemployable, and it is a small soluition that would save a little money, and give them less money to spend on their vices. Too many generalizations again. I know of at least 1 alcoholic who is in full time work. And would hazard a guess that many others are working while having a drug habit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Too many generalizations again. I know of at least 1 alcoholic who is in full time work. And would hazard a guess that many others are working while having a drug habit. When heroin was available clean and free on the NHS, almost all heroin addicts held down a full-time job and paid taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 When heroin was available clean and free on the NHS, almost all heroin addicts held down a full-time job and paid taxes. And many of those on morphine still do. Would hazard a good guess that in every office of say 30 people at least one will take some form of illegal drugs regularly and others will be functioning alcoholics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff1johnny Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 Well on a separate note, I have managed to get a meeting set up with an MP, who wishes to discuss the effects of an atos medical on people with mental health problems. If you would like to take part in the meeting private message me, and I'll let you know more details. This meeting will only be open to people with mental health issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Cancer does not always have to be emotive. For some it is a 30 min removal of a skin lesion and that is it -for others it is Stage 4 terminal lung cancer . They are very different illnesses and should be judged as such. Some really are not so bad at all. Breast cancer treated with drug therapy = fit to work. Prostate cancer treated with drug therapy = fit to work. Lung cancer treated with chemo = 'possibly' unfit to work. Pain is not taken into account. If it's not quantifiable, it doesn't exist. All three are life threatening, require treatment, peace of mind and a positive outlook to get well. They need to put their energy into getting better, not have even more worry heaped upon them. Some might find work helps, but that is for them to decide with their doctor, who has their best interests at heart. I agree that there are different degrees of illness, but that's the problem, the doctors / assessors have no room for manouvre or freedom to use their judgement. The points system is set in stone. People become 'units' not human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Breast cancer treated with drug therapy = fit to work. Prostate cancer treated with drug therapy = fit to work. Lung cancer treated with chemo = 'possibly' unfit to work. Pain is not taken into account. Pain is very much taken into account. It just isn't automatically assumed; the assessment treats everyone invidivually rather than imposing a blanket statement of "this disease causes this amount of pain." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff1johnny Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 Pain is very much taken into account. It just isn't automatically assumed; the assessment treats everyone invidivually rather than imposing a blanket statement of "this disease causes this amount of pain." the assesment treats everyone individually, what a load of rubbish. You should really have watched the dispatches program on channel 4, when they trained the doctor. here's a link if u would like to watch it and reassess your opinion, watch the first ten minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Hj0X39JrM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.