Yes we should be talking about it.

My son is a young adult who suffers from Paranoid Schizophrenia and the amount of pressure on him at the moment is disgusting. From benefits being cocked-up, to the lack of actual care available, to being told that funding is only available if matched funding is attained life is bloody hard for him. Suicide is common enough amongst people with mental health problems (and particularly amongst schizophrenics) and the extra pressure is only likely to increase that.

The thing is that he is one of the lucky ones in so much as he has me there to fight his battles and take the pressure of him; who is looking out for those that haven’t anyone to help? The ‘authorities’ certainly aren’t.

i don’t live in this world but i have a little experience of sitting with a depressed, vulnerable, suicidal person

it’s inconceivable that some of the governments decisions won’t be a factor in some people taking their own life

i guess it’s also possible that the stated objectives of, say, the welfare changes (to get people back to work), if met, might save someone from doing so

it’s an important measure i think

A really, really interesting article Sue. One of the questions raised is how those who are ‘outside’ the lives of individuals and their families living with chronic conditions view/’do not hear’ the comments of those living with constant pain/disability.

Somehow – and too often – statements like ‘I can’t go on’ are dismissed as ‘hysteria’. I can’t be alone in the experience of waking up in appalling pain in hospital early in the morning, begging for my pain killers [which at home I had been self administering for years!] and being told I would have to wait for two hours until the next medic round. [Obviously I became 'savvy' to that and smuggled pills in my handbag thereafter!] Just one little instance of how even the medical profession can ‘not hear’ what is being said to them.

And this ‘not hearing’ spreads far into society. The instance you give of Laura being found fit for work where she obviously was not is all too common – I did not even bother to apply when I had to leave work three years before retirement age due to my health problems as I knew too many others like me who had been turned down. Luckily I had an Other Half able to support me but never the less must be one of the few to celebrate reaching ‘Old Age Pension’ status earlier this year – income again at last!

“A full and frank debate needs to base itself on facts. Not hysteria or threats, but information”. Yes indeed but the collorary of this is the facts and information must be heard by *proper* listening. Too many health care officials do not listen because the answers to their questions do not fit into a box they can tick. Sociologists know that the answers depend on how the questions are posed. So to use a bit of a buzz word of the moment we need proper *narratives* with all sort of disability groups, the tick boxes need to be put in a bin and good listening taught to the questioners.

Thank you Sue.

“A full and frank debate needs to base itself on facts. Not hysteria or threats, but information.”

I think this is the crux of the argument. Suicide and its causes should never be ignored, but if the response to cuts is always “people will kill themselves if you do that”, it’s likely to be seen as jumping the shark by many. Even if it’s true.

The sad reality is someone needs to represent these people as an whole and take this entire issue to Parliament and expose what is really going on ( The Reality ). If the representatives are not listen to in Parliament then this is surely a matter for the High Court under Human Rights but the entire matter requires time,energy and money.

The Charitable and Voluntary Organizations and Groups need to get together as a matter of Urgency and formulate a plan to fight this Coalition of Evil to stop this injustice as soon as possible. The time for talking must end and Urgent Action is needed and now.

The Charitable and Voluntary Organizations and groups must Unite otherwise Politicians will not listen. Only these Organizations and Groups together fighting with one voice will make this possible and at the same time hopefully God Willing financing the legal Battle if need will become a reality.

It is time for Action and the people that can help know what they now need to do and muct act now.

The issue of suicide cuts both ways though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3102933.stm

Unemployment itself is associated with a greater risk of suicide and we know the current welfare system encourages some who could work not to do so, and therefore restrict themselves from one beneficial social structure. Welfare reform that puts more pressure on people to find work could just as easily prevent some suicides rather than generate more. Welfare dependency is not a nice way to live ones life. Of course, the best system of all would encourage those that can work to do so, and support those that cannot, a difficult policy to get right.

@ 6 Nick

I realise that this may be bordering on the oversimplistic, but if the current welfare system encourages (as opposed to forces) people not to work, then they presumably have the option of getting a job. There’s no such obvious way out for disabled people who have their benefits cut.

Terrible things do happen, some so awful that people feel they cannot go on but blaming this on the cuts is the most pathetic, shark jumping sophistry I have seen yet.

It is a sad fact that life can be dreadful, adults learn to accept this and recognise that just as there are times they can help, there are other things they can do nothing about.

Although there’s ONS data, there have been studies of prevalence of suicide amongst catergories of disabled people.

Gianinni et al (2010) found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that:

“Suicide rates are significantly higher among persons with multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury than in the general population. A more nuanced picture of suicide rates and risk factors exists for the intellectual disability population, in which it appears that rates of suicide risk factors are higher than among the general population while suicide rates may be lower.”

We can also look at this issue, to some extent, by proxy by examining trend in suicide rates amongst older people where we find that rates have been falling over recent years in both the UK and Australia largely, its believed, due to improvements in access to and provision of palliative care services.

Quality of life is a key factor but so too are individual expectations about the quality of life that a person expects to enjoy. In Laura’s case, her obvious distress will have been compounded by the early onset of her disability at a time in life when her expectations were high. Had she become disabled rather later in life she may have come to view her situation somewhat different because her expectations would be lower.

This is a complex debate and needs to be looked at in the round so dismissing anything without looking at the evidence is a bad idea.

The problem is the charities and groups are licking their lips at what they can make out of the welfare reforms, the Shaw Trust, Remploy, and numerous other charities are praying that once the spending on the back to work is finished a number on these charities will be sending it’s members back to work under the guise work is good for you.

I have just watched the great socialist Miliband talking in Wales, not a single mention on welfare, this has become a no go area for labour now.

But why is the vet worried is she worried about cuts or is she worried about welfare Reforms. It’s welfare reforms which are making people worried, the new WCA medical is enough to make me think.

The old PCA when it came in we thought my god , but once it settled in and people knew what it is, we sorted it out the rules were fair, the new WCA are not fair.

So what is labour feeling on welfare reforms, last week Miliband did mention welfare, he stated the labour party has to back the Tories on welfare reforms.

So sadly it’s Newer labour or the Tories and sadly I cannot as yet see the difference.

@7

Agreed. The problem, originally created under thatcher, is that the longterm unemployed have been mixed up with the longterm sick and disabled. I am just saying that there are mechanisms through which welfare benefits could themselves become a source of poor mental health. Which makes this a much more complex issue than simply protecting benefits. There are some ways and situations in which benefits can become harmful.

@ 8 Falco

“Terrible things do happen, some so awful that people feel they cannot go on but blaming this on the cuts is the most pathetic, shark jumping sophistry I have seen yet.”

Not really. The article makes a good case for the idea that, for some people, the cuts will be what pushes them over the edge. It’s possible to counter that argument, but you don’t get anywhere by just dismissing it with no justification.

“It is a sad fact that life can be dreadful, adults learn to accept this and recognise that just as there are times they can help, there are other things they can do nothing about.”

It’s nice of you to patronise those trying to protect the vulnerable. Obviously the definition of “adult” is “someone who shares Falco’s beliefs”. But you’re right: there ARE times that we can help, and one way we can do that is by not removing vital benefits for those who need them.

@ 11 Nick

True. Trying to balance welfare policy so that the genuinely deserving are protected while other people don’t leech off the system or become unemployable is extremely tricky and probably impossible to pull off flawlessly. However, improvements are always welcome.

@6

…and we know the current welfare system encourages some who could work not to do so

A tiny minority, and certainly not a representative sample.

@13

The problem is that not only is such a mechanism tricky to implement, as the previous government discovered it is in some cases actually more expensive to implement than giving most if not all applicants the benefit of the doubt and paying them benefits. Notwithstanding the awful stories that have recently surfaced from the people affected by the “false negatives” the system produces – people who desperately need financial support but are deemed “fit to work”.

Good article. I agree that the main barrier to an honest debate on the issue is (lack of) information, which then impedes understanding.

But also lack of experience – the article you link to (in the Guardian) references a survey by Scope which found that “whilst 91% of people believe that disabled people should have the same opportunities as everyone else” it remains the case that “nearly 40% of people (who are not disabled and do not have a disabled family member) don’t know any disabled people.”

[As an aside, can the editor correct the embarrassing typo he or she made in linking to: Dairy of a Benefit Scrounger?]

13/Chaise: Trying to balance welfare policy so that the genuinely deserving are protected while other people don’t leech off the system or become unemployable is extremely tricky and probably impossible to pull off flawlessly.

What I find most unpleasant is that in that in the field of criminal justice, it’s rightly not a controversial statement to say that it’s better to let ten guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person, whereas in the field of benefits distribution, it seems the opposite wrongly applies – it’s better to deny benefits to ten eligible people than to give them to one person who isn’t eligible.

The Tories and their apologists need to be reminded that their numbers games and cuts have real effects on real people and that the vulnerable are going to become victims.

Despite appearances, many of their supporters and even some Tory politicians are not without a conscience when the consequences of their actions are made vividly clear.

@ 16 Cim

I agree, and if I had it my way benefits policy would err on the side of generosity. While it’s not ideal, the state won’t go bust paying a few scroungers unmerited benefits, whereas one person denied genuinely needed help is in a lot of trouble.

Just had this…..

Regulations for the new, harsher work capability assessment (WCA) for employment and support allowance (ESA) were laid before parliament on 10 February and will come into force on 28 March 2011. They will lead to many tens of thousands more sick and disabled claimants being found fit for work and have deliberately been introduced in time to reduce the number of successful transfers from incapacity benefit to ESA.

The revised WCA will make it easier with some people with mental health conditions and cancer to get into the support group.

But it will also mean blind claimants who can get around safely with a guide dog will be forced onto jobseekers allowance, as will deaf claimants who can read and write.

Claimants who can’t walk but who can use a manual wheelchair will no longer score points.

In addition, references to hands have been removed from the picking up activity specifically in order to make it harder for amputees to score points.

Some activities have simply been cut from the test altogether. For example, the activity of ‘Bending and kneeling’, for which 30 points are currently available, is to be completely done away with for ‘health and safety reasons’ as people should not ‘bend forward when lifting’.

Half of all the scoring descriptors for mental health and learning difficulties have also been axed, making it much harder to get onto ESA for people with conditions such as depression or anxiety.

You can read more about the effects of the harsher WCA in an article we first published in April 20101:

19
You are quite right about the difficulty that mental health sufferers and those with learning dificulties experience when trying to claim ESA and DLA. The questions are directed more towards people who suffer from physical disabilities. Many people with mental health problems are too frightened to go out in public and have to rely upon other people to obtain their daily needs. Unfortunately, those who do not have a good understanding of mental illness have little empathy and it often takes several appeals before sufferers obtains benefits. This is all very well when they have relatives/professionals to help but many do not and this is when those with mental illness become homeless or end up in the criminal justice system.

sadly the new rules will mean even with my disability which is Paraplegia I would not get any benefit and be placed onto JSA.

Nothing works from the waist down yet thats not even good enough, but I have one way out thats the appeals…

@18

state won’t go bust paying a few scroungers unmerited benefits

You do realise that a benefit “scrounger” is not the same thing as a benefit cheat don’t you? A benefit scrounger is someone whom is entitled to benefits, is claiming them, but is regarded by right-wing newspaper editors as being undeserving of them, whereas a benefit cheat is someone who is fraudulently claiming benefits. That’s why every time the government announces a clamp down on benefit cheats the Mail et al always run stories with pictures of the supposed cheats, called scroungers naturally, who in theory should be worried about being taken to court if they’re picture and list of “crimes” is appearing in a national newspaper.

That is ultimately why the horror story fred related above, about the needy being purposely cheated, is allowed to happen. If person X is legitimately claiming benefits which you don’t think they should have, then changing the qualifying measures is the way toward freezing them out, if other truly needy types get frozen out, well, they obviously didn’t deserve them either.

If you want to reduce benefit fraud however, increasing the staffing levels and funding of the various fraud sections of the civil service might be a more useful diversion of resources…

Let us remind ourselves of what David Cameron said at the last General Election Televised Debate. Im sure as Mr Grunt indicated at No:5 comment that this Coalition has a case to answer with regards to human rights. In addition to this, if all the charitable and voluntary organizations that deal with the disabled join forces and speak with one voice justice will prevail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UvqmZlaAPY

What is happening to the sick and disabled is despicable because this is all about cutbacks when you look at how these Medical Assessment Tests are conducted and a dicision is arrived at.

Falco – If you live in extreme poverty already, suffering terrible pain daily and isolated, what makes you think that an income cut that means you can no longer afford food might not lead to suicide?

We’ll be forced to discuss death and suicide is relation to the cuts – http://bit.ly/ie7svm

It’s shocking, but not unexpected is it ….

I’m going to be a little controversial, but Fred’s brilliant posts have made me feel reckless.

I have severe, non-remitting, surgical bowel disease. Something’s munching me away from the inside. For 27 years. 1st op, it had eaten away my appendix entirely. Just wasn’t there any more. Imagine non stop peritonitis for 27 years and you’ve pretty much got it.

Anyway, a little imagination will give you a clue to how incapable for work that makes me.

Under the ATOS assessment though, absolutely none of my symptoms get any “points” except…..wait for it…. incontinence. BINGO! The full 15 points – job done. So never mind the endless agonising, vomiting, exhausting, destroying disease, if I have a symptom that embarrasses the assessors, policy makers or public, I’m in!!! (Shitting yourself? OMG, that really WOULD be bad!! **I have NEVER sworn in a piece before, but this is what people would say)

The whole thing is farcical. AND I have to discuss this with a total stranger when even my husband doesn’t know.

The whole system has been designed and is being further re-designed to deter. Plain and simple.

Cheats will cheat and those in genuine need will be the only ones to suffer.

I’m an incomplete severance of the spinal cord I’m classed as L5 partial or Paraplegic, this means my bowel does not work at all and I can have uncontrolled bowel movements, I have no control of my bladder and must use a catheter I can of course have a bag attached to my leg and my bowel can be changed to a bag, but I said I rather end my life now.

When labour brought out the first trials for ESA also the survey they used to tell people about 90% of people want to work I was part of this.

I failed the ESA on everything, they asked about bowel movement which are uncontrolled do you use a nappy, I said yes and they said you are therefore in control, they said about my bladder because you self catheterize your in control.

I got my 15 points because I cannot climb two steps.

pretty shocking is it not

“after her rent had been paid, she only had just under £400 to pay for everything else.”

£400 a month is that? Why would she have to choose between electricity and heating? £90ish a week is really not that hard to live on.

Well if you do not know the answer to that it’s not worth me telling you….

Zebura – is that a serious question? for gas, electric, food, transport, clothes, phone, council tax, insurance prescriptions and occasional costs? Seriously?

Cheats will cheat and those in genuine need will be the only ones to suffer.

This should be tattooed onto every coalition MP repeatedly until they get the message.

For me the greatest evil perpetrated by this government – and there are several candidates – is the demonising of the poor and vulnerable in order to justify the cuts to the our most fundamental duty as a society. I could cope, but disagree with the cuts. But, casting huge numbers of people who can’t fight back as the ‘scrougers’ or ‘work-shy’ or ‘poor by their own choice’ is sick and immoral.

AFZ

P.S. I am aware that Labour are not guilt-less in this respect either but two points:
1. I opposed it then too.
2. This is worse than what has gone before.

“It took a year or so before her doctor referred her to a specialist”

Another great NHS success then?

Surely £90 would only pay for one fancy dinner out for a couple in a fancy restaurant? Or one night away? Or half a spa day? Or 5% of a Caribbean holiday? Or half a % of a new car? Or 10% of a flat screen telly? Or for one decent seat at a show? or a special edition box set of your favourite show?

Laura worked hard for all those things. Things million of people take for granted.She will never have any of them again. She’s accepted that. She doesn’t ask anyone for any of those things.

But does that mean we expect her to scrape by on as little as possible? £90 is OK given everything you just read about her life and how it could have happened to any one of us at any time?

OK then, I’ll even give you that one. £90 is fine. The problem I’m trying to highlight is that she’s about to lose a third of her income in 5 years,VAT’s gone up, inflation is heading for 5%, her housing allowance cut and the NHS is cutting back.

Now can you see why she might feel desperate?

But Tony Blair had meetings with Cameron over welfare reforms it was decided they both go along the same lines.

Something has gone wrong within this society, whether it was that open letter from the yanks (CIA) or threats from the yanks about opening up health care god only knows.

But right now if your disabled or sick, then sadly your on your own we do not have a party.

Sue, I was being serious. I don’t like hyperbole. I have about £85 a week after my rent. Its not fantastic, but I have no problems paying for my food or heating. My situations not that much different to Laura’s, but I’m quite nonchalant about it.

“The problem I’m trying to highlight is that she’s about to lose a third of her income in 5 years,VAT’s gone up, inflation is heading for 5%, her housing allowance cut and the NHS is cutting back.”

Then why didn’t you talk about that in your article, rather than pretend that she struggles to pay for food now.

Fred @35

The Sick and Disabled will not be alone if they and the Charitable and Voluntary Organizations and other groups that represent the Sick and Disabled get together and speak as one and take this matter directly to Parliament and then onto the High Court if need be. This needs to happen now.

The talking must stop and action must be taken immediately. This coalitions Evil ways are becoming obvious as the days go by and people are starting to stand up to this coalition. What happened with the Forests is an example and this Coalition backed down because people joined together and exposed the deceit and dishonesty of this coalition. It will happen with the National Health Service because people know that this Coalition will deceitfully sell of a National Asset without a thought for our health.

I wished that I was in a position or had the contacts to help the Sick and Disabled but sadly I can only offer advice and hope that someone connected to the Sick and Disabled will have the contacts and influence to push this matter directly to Parliament and find access to legal funding to take this matter further if need be. Im also sure that a good law firm or legal advisory service would be more than happy to give legal advice or assistance for free. Some Members of Parliament are very sympathetic and that avenue should be explored by Charities or Voluntary Organizations/Groups that work with the Sick and Disabled.

Get them to try this and you may find that your voice will be heard loud and clear and hopefully wipe that arrogant grin off David Camerons face.

36
You cannot compare a person with a disability with an able-bodied person. Someone who is incontinent has to pay for incontinence pads, do you know how much those cost?

Zebura – Thank you, you’re right. I spend so much time highlighting that on my blog
http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.com/ you’re right to point out that it isn’t actually in this article,

I do however find it hard to believe that if you find yourself in Laura’s position, you a “nonchalant” about it. Or that living on £85 a week with no other benefits is quite manageable.

The two claimants, both from West Dunbartonshire, died from the conditions which caused them to claim Incapacity Benefit (IB) while waiting for appeals to be heard against cuts to their benefits.

One was deemed fit for work during a work capability assessment, despite having a deteriorating chronic illness, and lost both incapacity benefit and disability living allowance.

When his support worker appeared at the appeal tribunal she had to report her client could not be there because he was dead. The appeal was upheld and the backpayment will become part of his estate.

The other had a congenital condition which caused difficulty in walking but was assessed capable of work and his incapacity benefit was withdrawn. He was waiting for a date for an appeal tribunal when he died.

The assessment was inadequate and very unprofessional. The doctor simply did not have the information
A third person, again from West Dunbartonshire, died recently after winning a second appeal tribunal following three years of repeated assessments and decisions being overturned.

He worked as a shop assistant in his 20s but was forced to give up due to severe heart and lung problems caused by a degenerative syndrome.

@ 22

“You do realise that a benefit “scrounger” is not the same thing as a benefit cheat don’t you?”

Only if you’re a tabloid newspaper or against all benefits. When I say scrounger her, I mean cheat. Nothing wrong with people claiming the benefits they’re entitled to.

@41 Fair enough, I believe it’s worth making the distinction though, scrounger has become a much more vindictive umbrella term beyond cheat. It carries undertones of beggars and the undeserving poor, those who should be punished for their laziness and fecklessness, and whom are undeserving of any respect.

What was it Blair called us ah yes work shy.

@43

Blair stopped speaking for Labour a long time ago.

The advisors to Miliband are Brown, Blair, and Kinnock, lets see who started new labour ah yes Kinnock Blair and brown with the help of a few others of course.