Uk: Stripping Benefits Claimants Who Refuse Treatment For Depression

[digger]

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.

This depends a lot on who is given responsibility for assessing the severity of a person's condition. The system as it stands at the moment for assessment is, at best, inadequate.

 

[madmax]

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

The U.S. will be next if Obama has his way.

 

[CheeryFetchling]

I think I'd have to agree that it would depend on how it was applied. Let's face it, benefits aren't exactly well assessed.

There are people who abuse the benefits system, not nearly so many as the Daily Mail claims, but there are. This may pick up a few but would it really achieve a great deal? If I were a cynic (surely not) I'd say people will be offered 12 CBT sessions over the phone and prozac / tri-cyclics / beta blockers and that'll probably be it.I can't imagine they'll start testing to see if people are actually taking the pills, so that could be a dead end anyway. CBT is cheap and you need to complete, what, 3 cycles before they offer something else. And most people won't get 3 cycles. What is offered may not be enough, in many cases.

The key thing would seem to be the word "refusal". Would that mean "do not take any treatment", "do not complete course of treatment" or "want alternative treatment"?

It kinda sounds sensible, but, as loads of you have said, there aren't many resources available in many areas and CAMHS is hanging on by a thread (though good luck getting benefits as a young person!).

 

[Kas_Can_Fly]

This depends a lot on who is given responsibility for assessing the severity of a person's condition.

I agree with this, especially if rather than NHS doctors or specialists, private companies are paid to find people fit for work, whether they are or not - similar to what is already being done.

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

They are not my words and I do agree with what you say about the extremity distracting from the serious discussion. However, I have read more than enough stories where people have been left completely stranded with no money for food, bills or rent after being sanctioned (often wrongly so) and that this can occur if you are in the work-related activity group of Employment Support Allowance and Jobseekers. Food bank use supports this and you are only allowed to use a food bank twice in a year, what about all the other weeks?

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.

I agree entirely, I just feel that these tests should be conducted only by trained doctors or related specialists and not occupational therapists, physiotherapists and other nursing fields that may not have an adequate understanding the multitude of disorders and problems that come their way. I also believe that professionals in the applicants life views and findings (therapists, psychiatrists, surgeons, pain management etc, etc.) should always play a part in the decision and should hold at least 50% hold in the matter. The current tests have been deemed not fit for purpose by the General Medical Council as well as by nurses, doctors and psychs all over the country.

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?

In my albeit limited experiences, more often than not it's the case, you rarely get anything that requires any serious people hours, mostly likely you'll get an SSRI from your GP without warning of the side-effects and if you encounter any, you'll be told that's normal and you should put up with it.

There are people who abuse the benefits system, not nearly so many as the Daily Mail claims, but there are.

0.7% is the official figure for benefit fraud. There is also a 1.2% for benefit errors by the DWP that could potentially be spun into benefit fraud as these overpayments are for the most part not returned unless the DWP notices their mistakes and chase them down.

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.

Hence being located in the discussion section of the forum ^_^

There are people who abuse the benefits system, not nearly so many as the Daily Mail claims, but there are. This may pick up a few but would it really achieve a great deal? If I were a cynic (surely not) I'd say people will be offered 12 CBT sessions over the phone and prozac / tri-cyclics / beta blockers and that'll probably be it.I can't imagine they'll start testing to see if people are actually taking the pills, so that could be a dead end anyway. CBT is cheap and you need to complete, what, 3 cycles before they offer something else. And most people won't get 3 cycles. What is offered may not be enough, in many cases.
The key thing would seem to be the word "refusal". Would that mean "do not take any treatment", "do not complete course of treatment" or "want alternative treatment"?

I agree with all of this, I too appear to be a cynic!

 

[Lady of Longbourn]

mostly likely you'll get an SSRI from your GP without warning of the side-effects and if you encounter any, you'll be told that's normal and you should put up with it.

Does it say what kind of help in the article? (Sorry I didn't read it).

 

[Kas_Can_Fly]

Does it say what kind of help in the article? (Sorry I didn't read it).

It says that either medication and/or a short course of CBT. The concern most people are having (not from this site but other sources which I admit are likely biased to be terrified of a move) is the ethical issues and the lack of funding and availability of therapy.