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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As