Uk: Stripping Benefits Claimants Who Refuse Treatment For Depression

[Kas_Can_Fly]

There is news that the Tories are discussing cutting benefits for people with mental health problems who aren't on medication or getting therapy. This is despite the massive cuts to all health services meaning that most people don't get therapy any and if you're lucky enough to it's limited to 6-12 sessions. I wonder what people here think of that.

 

[KwanYingirl]

Well isn't that just great. The people that need services the most don't get help. I'm in the US where there are laws to protect people with biologically based psychological problems and specifically rape and sexual abuse histories. It took a big fight in congress and the insurance companies spend a lot of money trying to bribe congress. I wish your country was more concerned than it seems from what you all describe how hard it is to get quality help.

 

[digger]

Do you have a link to more information about it?

 

[Kas_Can_Fly]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ants-who-refuse-treatment-for-depression.html

 

[Deleted member 19804]

It's idealistic. It might work if people were robots, but it in no way reflects the way the real world works. People with depression, for example, find it already very hard to reach out for help. Many of them think they don't deserve help. So if the state threatens to take their benefits, it probably won't make much of a difference. They'll probably get worse and might even end up hurting themselves. Let's see how much that'll cost the government.

Personally, I think that one should never cut in health care funding, whether it be the mental or the physical kind. They're doing the same thing in my country and people are already suffering massively. I hope the high hats of our countries will soon realise that what they're doing is not only morally wrong, it's also very inefficient.

 

[cherryblossom]

I personally find that he link and your thread title are somewhat different to your first post content, where you talk about people who aren't receiving treatment, as opposed to those who are refusing treatment, which are very different scenarios.

Personally, I think it could be seen as a good thing, because, if people who are on benefits due to depression are evaluated, and if treatment is not available, then surely it will have to become available, and offered to them.

The article states

One trial began last month, looking at combining “talking therapies” with employment support. Four jobcentres are taking part.

The intention of the scheme is to give benefit claimants early access to experts who can help them prepare for work while they are receiving treatment for mental health issues.

Three further trials being launched this summer are intended to test different ways of linking mental health services with support for benefit claimants seeking work.

I think both the headline of the article, and this thread title actually detract from the main point. Firstly, refusal to undergo treatment is very different to there being no treatment available, and also if the government say you must undergo treatment, then equally, they will have to provide that treatment, which is surely a good thing. Not only good for the individuals involved, but good for the country and the economy as a whole. Just think about how different that headline could be -

"Plans being considered to provide therapy for depression in order to help individuals back to work".

"Job centres to provide access to mental health services to support those with depression improve their employment prospects"

I agree, that mental health services have been cut beyond what is needed, but perhaps this scheme will help to reintroduce metal health services for those who need it most - those individuals who are stuck in a vicious cycle of depression, money worries, and inability to work, which compounds the problem.

It's also only a trial, and will be assessed and evaluated. Just because the goal is to get people off benefits, and back to work, doesn't mean it's bad news for the depressed person on benefits. It could be just what they need.[DOUBLEPOST=1405254319,1405254211][/DOUBLEPOST]

People with depression, for example, find it already very hard to reach out for help.

Wouldn't this type of scheme mean that individuals who find it hard to reach out for help, have it handed to them on a plate?

 

[Kas_Can_Fly]

From what I've read elsewhere, the main concerns from a lot of people are;

• Not getting on with medication and being forced to stay on it or be deemed as not trying to get better.
  
• Short-term therapy actually worsening people and then being suddenly removed.
• The inneffectiveness of short-term therapy.
• The fact that CBT is distressing and not suitable for all situations.
• Worsening mental health problems by shaming people into treatment.
• No therapy being available, so only a prescription and being left stranded.
• The treatment not being available but benefits being removed regardless.
• Being forced to have a treatment or being left to starve.
• Profiteering by major pharmaceutical companies regardless of the patient's welfare.
• The NHS's capability to cope with the extra workload.
• In the cases of Genetic disorders, treatment not being as effective

Obviously this is only in discussion at the moment, but these (and I'm sure many others) are serious concerns that must be addressed but I personally believe there is some naivety in believing the government only wants to help people. A lot of people have died and many more hurt because of welfare reforms and whilst some of those figures have been released, figures since 2012 have been hidden despite multiple attempts to have them released to the public through Freedom of Information requests and court requests.

Though I do see it being a potential positive as well, especially that there should be more awareness brought to mental health issues and that hopefully more treatment will become available - I also believe that some people will benefit from being nudged towards treatment they might otherwise have avoided.

 

[digger]

My main concern with this is that it won't be met with an adequate increase in the quality and quantity of available therapy for people and that people will be forced into the medication route as a result or into a type of therapy that will result in more harm than good for them.

In an ideal world, yes, this could be a great opportunity for the government to actually help people get what they need - my inner cynic though says it just looks a lot like yet another scheme to hit those most at need the hardest.:unsure:

 

[cherryblossom]

I can see both sides of this. But I mainly see the positive, and the potential of this type of scheme.

Hopefully, the trials that they are conducting will highlight the massive inadequacies of the mental health system and support that is currently available (or more likely not available).

I'm not naive enough to believe that the government only want to help people. Or even that they want to help people at all. What the government always wants is to improve the economy. However, if they are spending vast amounts on social welfare, then they are going to want to try to fix that, in the long term. And perhaps, this might help. I don't have enough knowledge to know which government made all the cuts to leave mental health services so inappropriate, and underfunded, but perhaps, eventually, the current government are realising where there are massive short falls. And perhaps, just maybe they are trying to turn the tables on that.

I have little doubt that their overall goal is to reduce the amount spent on benefits, but equally, if it makes a difference to individuals, then surely that has the potential to be positive?

Sure, they will do their trials, and then do their sums, and figure out whether providing the service they are trialling is financially beneficial, but at least they are looking into it. Yes, we can be cynical about such a trial, but at least they are looking at doing something, rather than nothing!

 

[Hashi]

I agree that the quality and sustainability of treatment could be a big issue here. At the same time, I do agree with it in principle.

If we want mental health issues to be taken as seriously as physical health issues, we have to expect similar principles to apply to both. I wouldn't expect people to be able to claim Employment Support Allowance (ESA) for a physical condition that they refused to get treatment for, so I think the same idea would apply.

Realising that these aren't necessarily your own words @Kas_Can_Fly, I feel annoyed at people saying things like:

Being forced to have a treatment or being left to starve.

There have to be some checks on the benefits system, and some responsibility on the part of claimants to do what they can for themselves. I think melodramatic phrases like this undermine the more serious discussion about finding the right balance.

 

[Deleted member 19804]

Wouldn't this type of scheme mean that individuals who find it hard to reach out for help, have it handed to them on a plate?

I don't think so. Maybe for those with "light" depression it does, but I fear that the more severely depressed will fall into a hole. Depression is already so isolating and if one can barely get out of bed in the morning, how are they going to get to therapy? Yes, it is a mental illness, but an illness nonetheless and it can be such a big barrier for a sufferer, that they will give up on therapy, too. Then they might end up homeless or worse. How is the government going to help those people?

And what if someone has another psychiatric disorder as well? Anorexia nervosa, for example, is often paired with depression, but also with a lot of shame and secrecy. If an anorexic doesn't want to get better, they will just tell lies about being fine in order to get therapy over with. And afterwards they'll just keep on doing what they did before treatment. I know, because I was one.

Aside from that, it's true that people will have to want to get better, but I don't believe that cutting their benefits is the way to encourage them. You have to want to get better for yourself. You have to believe that life can be better. I think that if you're so ill you don't believe in the possibility of a better life, going to therapy has no use whatsoever.

Edit: I just want to add that I agree with @cherryblossom that it is a good thing this discussion was started. It doesn't mean that things exactly have to go along with the proposed plans, that's what a discussion is for. :)

 

[Hashi]

You have to want to get better for yourself. You have to believe that life can be better.

This is only about getting better enough to cope adequately with work. I've gone to therapy in the past so that I could continue working. I didn't believe life would get better, I was only looking for tools so that I could manage to stay at work. (This was because my trauma history makes it very important to me to be able to earn enough to support myself. If I'd been on benefits and had the threat of losing them, I would have similarly taken that action.)

It's also worth saying that an employer has to make reasonable adjustments for someone with a disability, which could be things like flexible working arrangements and reallocating duties. PTSD and depression can count as disabilities.

I did reach a point where I had to stop working for a while and was receiving benefits. I don't think it would have been reasonable for me to do that without working on recovering enough to get back to work.

The article says:

The reforms however, would apply only to those claimants judged to be capable of some work in future.
Those who are judged to be incapable of work due to the severity of their conditions would not be targeted under the plans.

So someone who can't get out of bed for depression would probably be automatically excluded anyway. Similarly, having more than one mental health issue would also be taken into account. This wouldn't apply to everyone.

That's what I mean about getting the right balance. Maybe there's more discussion needed around where the lines are drawn, and how. But all political decisions like tests for benefits are difficult. I don't think that means there should be no lines drawn - the country couldn't afford it.