Skip to main content

Unethical work capability assessment is not fit for purpose


“Do you have pets at home?” The client answered in the affirmative, so the records show that the client, “Feeds and cares for dog without difficulty”. The truth was their pets were cared for by their children.

This is from an account given by the Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) in their evidence to the third year review of the Work Capability Assessments. It is one of many statements from their clients experiences of WCA.  In yet another case it was reported a  "client sought advice as the HCP recorded no abnormality and no problem with hands, despite the client having visibly swollen and deformed hands, with a consultant rheumatologist report confirming this."

Anecdotal, yes. But anecdotal evidence can be powerful when the sum total creates a coherent and meaningful testament; when each voice like a thread weaves a tapestry that is compelling and authentic. When there are common features to each narrative. "They did not listen." "They moved on to the next question when I tried to explain." For how else can such evidence be? These are real lives, real people with real stories to tell. Each witness contributes their story of a system that isn't working; a system that is cruel, impersonal and ineffective. And it is cruel and ineffective precisely because it does not listen to their stories.

The CAB evidence should be heeded. Many of the clients they advise have their WCA decision reversed on appeal. It is usually reversed in the light of facts, knowledge and understanding that is not considered in the assessment. The experience of how their clients have been treated in the process is second to none. Their conclusion about the system is damning.


"Citizens Advice retains concerns about the descriptors that are used for assessment purposes. Evidence received from clients suggests that the descriptors that are currently used are not the best markers of a clients disability, or a fair assessment of what they could reasonably be considered ‘fit enough’ to do in a work-environment."

WCA is not fit for purpose. It is based on no reasonable evidence that it works, and meanwhile it does harm.  The Work and Pensions Secretary, Mr Duncan-Smith says it will do good because it will help people back into work to lead productive lives; it will, he says, "make them better people". A utilitarian ethical consideration should consider the ratio of benefit to harm. The harm  cannot simply be ignored because politicians believe in the greater good. Driving people off benefits regardless of the consequences is at best reckless; but when that harm is already clear, it is immoral. And the harm to patients with mental health problems is already compelling.

In a survey of GPs commissioned last year by Rethink Mental Illness and carried out by ICM, 84% of GPs said they had patients who presented with mental health problems such as stress, anxiety or depression as a result of undergoing, or fear of undergoing, the Work Capability Assessment; 21% said they had patients with suicidal thoughts; 14% had patients who had self harmed; 6% had patients who had attempted or had committed suicide. They also thought that the system failed to consider their knowledge and understanding of the patient's history and condition.

How many tears must be shed before their stories are read? We cannot help people 'back to work'  simply by driving them off benefits regardless of their circumstances and regardless of the way their disability affects them in their daily lives.   A process that takes no account of this is a system that is not fit for purpose. It is a heartless and cruel system. In a civilised society we can do better.


If you are concerned about the WCA and how it is affecting people's lives there are two petitions you might consider signing:









Comments

Post a Comment

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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,