Skip to main content

The cruelty of disability assessments


Accurate, objective, consistent and transparent assessment that looks at people as individuals. This is the description given by the Department for Work and Pensions of its disability assessment criteria.  It sounds good doesn't it? Objective; accurate, consistent. let's leave transparent out for the moment and consider these three descriptives. In short they are the problem. They are based on the assumption that a 'neutral' and dispassionate calculus is fair; fair because it is applied to all in the same way. It is a calculation, cold, simple. Surely it is fair because it treats people equally? No it is unfair because it treats people regardless of their differences; it is a depersonalised assessment. And this is an ingredient of unfairness. We are not 'equal' and to treat us as if we are is unfair, unjust. This is why standardised assessment of ability is unfair and leads to injustice. It treats us as is we are all the same. 

Ability is contextual. I can move my  fingers, but I can't play piano at grade 8. I can move my legs but I can't run 100 metres in less than 10 seconds. What we can do with our capabilities is dependent on circumstance. It might for example depend on support or availability of transport. It might depend on geography but it might also depend upon other abilities we may or may not have. An isolated ability is not capability; For a genuinely fair assessment we need not a dispassionate assessment but one that is compassionate and understanding of circumstance. Those best able to do this are those who know the person in a professional capacity; not an independent assessor applying a slide rule, and certainly not one whose income is dependent on the assessment. They must be truly free from personal benefit in the process.  This is clearly not the case when companies make profits from it. 

This problem of privatising assessment is that it sets targets.  The government clearly wants to drive people off disability benefit and into work.  Thus the objective is not a 'fair' assessment but one that is more likely than not to cut benefit. That is the desired outcome. If the process is set up to look for reasons to cut benefits, then it is weighted to do so. The companies involved set out to achieve this.  It is targeted to do so and this is clearly why we are seeing the kinds of unjust decisions that are at best leading people to despair and suicide. 

I often wonder what Mr Cameron and Mr Duncan-Smith really feel about this. At best I think they have fooled themselves into believing objective and consistent means it must be dispassionate. I think they believe this is fair. But it is not precisely because it is lacking in compassion and understanding of the individual. At worse of course, as many opponents will say, they are cruel and don't care. I leave others to make that assessment, accurately, objectively of course!

Postscript

There is now a petition  Please consider signing if you agree that the government should rethink this pernicious policy.
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they