help?

GlasweJen

I like to think that I look pretty good day to day. On a work day I'm made up with my hair done and I tend to wear skirts to work these days, with shirts or nice tops. I'm also a cardiac patient who has blackouts and I have a pacemaker implanted, on the heart transplant list and take numerous medications and wear TED stockings to get about.

If you saw me at that medical would you have assumed that there was nothing wrong with me on the basis that my hair and make up look good?

AnxiousMum

An old family friend back in Canada was a Mary Kay cosmetics sales rep. When she was diagnosed with cancer, she went from being the perfect looking woman - hair, makeup, clothing - all simply perfect, to basically a bedraggled mess. At one point when she was in the hospital she decided to have her hair done by the mobile hair dresser that would book appointments in the hospital (usually for long term patients). She found that with her hair done, she looked better....and she felt sooooooo much better. During her treatment, she then dedicated her time to making sure she looked as good as she could - she found it affected not only her own feeling of well being, but even moreso, it affected the way others treated her. They treated her with the usual respect she used to have, not the pity and discomfort of being around her that had started after her diagnosis. She went on to dedicate her cosmetics career to doing mobile makeup - primarily in the oncology wards of the local hospitals. The hospitals actually contracted her to come in and apply makeup to the female patients - and the difference in how happy they felt within themselves was noted, and deemed to be a worthwhile expense for the hospital. As she lost her hair etc., she expanded into various colourful headpieces. I'm sure that once she was done at the hospital bed, had the patient been up and dressed - many wouldn't realise how ill and incapacitated they were either. You certainly can't go by appearance to determine a disability.

melbi_uk

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Think of it this way.....

For 20 years you've had the same GP......after that amount of time, yes the GP would know your medical history, but if you've been in and out on a regular basis for various ailments, flue, infections etc., there will also be a relationship where the patient begins to consider a doctor as almost part of the family.

If you have built up that kind of relationship with a patient, it must be VERY VERY hard when they come in looking for a sick note, to say NO! Even without that relationship - a GP in many cases is in a situation where if they refuse the sick note claim, they are firstly then open to abuse by some patients, and to a feeling of mistrust/mistreatment by the patient. It's alot easier for the Dr to take the easy way out - give the sick note (after all, the patient has told them they are incapable of working due to their ailment), and let the third party - ie the decision maker, determine whether the illness is enough to render them incapable of ANY type of work. It is not the GPs job to sit with the patient and go through all lines of work to see what they ARE capable of doing, that's the job of the decision maker.

I think that any of us currently working know we could go and get a sick note tomorrow if we really wanted to.......

I have never asked for a sick note, I always leave that for my GP to decide

AnxiousMum wrote: »

An old family friend back in Canada was a Mary Kay cosmetics sales rep. When she was diagnosed with cancer, she went from being the perfect looking woman - hair, makeup, clothing - all simply perfect, to basically a bedraggled mess. At one point when she was in the hospital she decided to have her hair done by the mobile hair dresser that would book appointments in the hospital (usually for long term patients). She found that with her hair done, she looked better....and she felt sooooooo much better. During her treatment, she then dedicated her time to making sure she looked as good as she could - she found it affected not only her own feeling of well being, but even moreso, it affected the way others treated her. They treated her with the usual respect she used to have, not the pity and discomfort of being around her that had started after her diagnosis. She went on to dedicate her cosmetics career to doing mobile makeup - primarily in the oncology wards of the local hospitals. The hospitals actually contracted her to come in and apply makeup to the female patients - and the difference in how happy they felt within themselves was noted, and deemed to be a worthwhile expense for the hospital. As she lost her hair etc., she expanded into various colourful headpieces. I'm sure that once she was done at the hospital bed, had the patient been up and dressed - many wouldn't realise how ill and incapacitated they were either. You certainly can't go by appearance to determine a disability.

I agree with what you are all saying, but I read so many times that ATOS take notice of your appearance and how you conduct yourself.

IF that lady was there because of anxiety then I envy her, if not then I am upset. How many people say, 'I'm feeling depressed today' when what they mean is they are feeling a little down or sad. OR, 'I'm feeling anxious', when really they mean they are stressed.

Oldernotwiser

dogfish12 wrote: »

Somebody has mentioned independence in benefit decision making. Well, whenever independence is mentioned, my pavlovian reaction is to ask, who pays the wages? Because whoever pays the piper names the tune! So much for independence.

Who pays doctors' salaries?

dogfish12

The big difference is that the GP'S on the incapacity board are there to pass you as fit to work by hook or by crook so their integrity is questionable. And there is the question of quotas which further undermines credibilty. How many people do you read on these boards who are clearly incapable of work and are yet pased fit? Many of these GP'S are primarily retired so this is their only income, so the temptation is to do their master's bidding. Your practice GP is not under such pressure and therefore the temptation does not exist.

tcr_3

dogfish12 wrote: »

The big difference is that the GP'S on the incapacity board are there to pass you as fit to work by hook or by crook so their integrity is questionable. And there is the question of quotas which further undermines credibilty. How many people do you read on these boards who are clearly incapable of work and are yet pased fit? Many of these GP'S are primarily retired so this is their only income, so the temptation is to do their master's bidding. Your practice GP is not under such pressure and therefore the temptation does not exist.

The biggest criticism of ATOS (the private company which you refer to as the incapacity board) is that they don't use GP's at all, instead they use "qualified medical professionals" who may not have any experience whatever of the health condition in question.

I don't think they use quotas, as such, there's no way they pass everyone fit on a Monday then bomb everyone else out Tues-Fri just to meet quota.

In the trials in Aberdeen & some other place which escapes me, as a result of the ESA medical approx 40% went into the support group, 30% into the work related group and 30% were found fit to do work of some kind right away. So that's approx 70% who stayed on ESA as a result of their medical.

And, to be honest, the 30% figure for those who got bombed off ESA altogether, well, that ties in with my experience of folk on sickness benefits ... there's an awful lot of people on the sick who can work, they just don't want to or (more likely) they've been on the sick so long they just don't have sufficient confidence in themselves to know what they're capable of, if given half a chance.

NASA_2

dogfish12 wrote: »

Somebody has mentioned independence in benefit decision making. Well, whenever independence is mentioned, my pavlovian reaction is to ask, who pays the wages? Because whoever pays the piper names the tune! So much for independence.

Claims are only referred to Decision Makers when people score below the points total. Naturally. So unless they have something from the claimant or someone else to contradict what is in the report then they will obviously disallow the benefit.

There is no financial reward for decisions makers in disallowing people. It would be throwing money away for there to be a reward.

dogfish12 wrote: »

The big difference is that the GP'S on the incapacity board are there to pass you as fit to work by hook or by crook so their integrity is questionable. And there is the question of quotas which further undermines credibilty. How many people do you read on these boards who are clearly incapable of work and are yet pased fit? Many of these GP'S are primarily retired so this is their only income, so the temptation is to do their master's bidding. Your practice GP is not under such pressure and therefore the temptation does not exist.

That, frankly, is !!!!!!!!.

People on here usually exaggerate their illness while in person they probably play it down (Most people do). As such we get a distorted view of things on this site.

dogfish12

"People on here usually exaggerate their illness." Well, that just sums up many commenters views on the unemployed/sick people. In other words most of them are fraudsters who need to shape up, come out of their drug/alcohol induced stupor and get to work which is readily available with only shirkers not finding any. Personally, I give people the benefit of the doubt.

NASA_2

dogfish12 wrote: »

"People on here usually exaggerate their illness." Well, that just sums up many commenters views on the unemployed/sick people. In other words most of them are fraudsters who need to shape up, come out of their drug/alcohol induced stupor and get to work which is readily available with only shirkers not finding any. Personally, I give people the benefit of the doubt.

I thought I added that the same people also underplay their illness when going into the assessment centres?

My point is that when people come on here and say how awfully sick they are - most of them will probably have 'put a brave face on it' when they went to be assessed instead of giving a true picture.

GlasweJen

My list sounds awful and theoretically I do qualify for ESA but I work and the only help I need is with transport. If I were to post on the boards that I was told I'm fit to work even though I'm waiting on a heart transplant the board would be full of objections but the fact is I am fit for work.