Skip to main content

Why the government policies on incapacity benefits are unethical

For several years I served on NHS research ethics committees. There were key questions that concerned us in considering any research project. One of these considerations was whether the project was sufficiently robust to produce a meaningful answer to the question, or to sufficiently test the hypothesis. Was the cohort of the right size, was it sufficiently representative of the population, was the question being asked in the right way? Was it the right question?

Ill-conceived and poorly planned research is unethical. It is unethical because of its potential for harm. Policy decisions based on poor or inadequate research are also unethical; unethical because of the potential for harm; harm that could have been avoided if the research had been more robust. It means that the assumptions upon which the policy is based is likely to be wrong. Implementing policies on untested assumptions is unethical, and this is a major reason I have argued that the government's approach to incapacity benefits is unethical. It is based on assumptions that have been poorly tested if tested at all and it is doing severe harm. It is hurting people.

A utilitarian consideration might argue that a certain amount of harm is the price worth paying for a greater benefit. This is indeed the argument deployed by Mr Duncan-Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He argues that the new approach to incapacity assessment will bring fairness to benefit provision. It will he says make people on benefits 'better people' and it will save the taxpayer £2.24 billion annually. Those who could work should work he argues and it all sounds very fair. But it is based on a false and inadequately tested assumption. The assumption that as much as 30% of those claiming incapacity benefit should not be eligible and should be in work or on job-seekers allowance. I have demonstrated previously how this assumption is based on inadequate assessments in a small cohort of claimants in Aberdeen and Burnley. The assumption that 30% of claimants should be ineligible is wrong; the assumption of the policy is wrong. The harm being done based on that assumption is wrong.

But the policy is unethical also because it stigmatises those on benefits as scroungers, shirkers or skivers. It tells the public that a large proportion of those receiving these benefits are effectively 'cheats'.  This is unwarranted. It is not based on any tested figures. It is prejudicial, harmful and therefore unethical. It is unethical language. The language of 'welfare dependency' suggesting that these claimants are fickle and dependant.

It is unethical because it strategically seeks to divide the population into the virtuous and the sinners, and it seeks to turn one against the other. By branding those on benefits it makes it easier to turn on them and harm them; to make them bear the greater share of the cuts. We are all in this together but some are in it more than others.

It runs on another erroneously peddled assumption; that we cannot afford to pay these benefits. It is erroneous because it suggests, wrongly, that our financial problem stems from the welfare budget being too high. Wrong! The welfare budget is high because of failure elsewhere, because of increased unemployment and because of increasing poverty.  To make the poor pay for their poverty is unethical. Making the poor pay for the financial crisis brought on by unethical banking is not simply unethical; it is immoral.


Popular posts from this blog

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

Half measures on heat pumps

Through the "Heat and Buildings Strategy", the UK government has set out its plan to incentivise people to install low-carbon heating systems in what it calls a simple, fair, and cheap way as they come to replace their old boilers over the coming decade.  New grants of £5,000 will be available from April next year to encourage homeowners to install more efficient, low carbon heating systems – like heat pumps that do not emit carbon when used – through a new £450 million 3-year Boiler Upgrade Scheme. However, it has been widely criticised as inadequate and a strategy without a strategy.  Essentially, it will benefit those who can afford more readily to replace their boiler.   Undoubtedly, the grants will be welcome to those who plan to replace their boilers in the next three years, and it might encourage others to do so, but for too many households, it leaves them between a rock and a hard place.  There are no plans to phase out gas boilers in existing homes.  Yet, that is wha

No real commitment on climate

Actions, they say, speak louder than words.  So, when we look at the UK government's actions, we can only conclude they don't mean what they say about the environment and climate change.  Despite their claims to be leading the charge on reducing emissions, the UK government is still looking to approve new oil fields.  The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson,  has announced his support for developing the Cambo oil field and 16 other climate-destroying oil projects. Cambo is an oil field in the North Sea, west of Shetland. A company called Siccar Point has applied for a permit to drill at least 170 million barrels of oil there. If it's allowed to go ahead, it will result in the emissions equivalent of 18 coal plants running for a year.  What? Yes, 18 coal plants a year!  Today, as I write, Greenpeace is demonstrating in Downing Street against this project.  I suppose it will get the usual government dismissal and complaints about inconveniencing others.  Well, we know it won't