"Tough Love" Cuts for sick and disabled!

Dunroamin

dori2o wrote: »

I'm not saying that seeking treatment is a bad thing, but when they say

it makes the assumption that everyone can recover from their illness. I can't from mine, and no amount of treatment is going to change that. All I can do now is accept the way things are.

How about those with terminal conditions, are we saying these people should be forced into treatment that in all likelyhood isn't going to make them better.

What happens when your GP/Dr/Consultant says there is no further treatment available, will ATOS agree with this, or will they determine their own rules? I'd rather trust my own DR's to tell me about treatment options, considering they know the history, and are experts in their field, rather than some HCP who is paid to get people off benefits, and may not have any idea about your particular condition.

I'm all for people being properly tested, but it should be down to an individuals own Dr's to advise on treatment, not ATOS.

Also, if this goes ahead, who will be liable for the cost of the treatment if it is not available on the NHS? How far will people be expected to travel to receive treatment?

if treatment is not available on the NHS, would the individual be sanctioned if they were advised to have said treatment but could not afford to pay for it?

It's another brain dead idea from a brain dead government.

Therapies and treatment may not effect miracle cures but they can often alleviate conditions. Most of the rest of your post is just ridiculous scaremongering.

dori2o

Dunroamin wrote: »

Therapies and treatment may not effect miracle cures but they can often alleviate conditions. Most of the rest of your post is just ridiculous scaremongering.

I absolutely agree, but the only people who should be advising on these treatments are those that are experts in the condition an individual suffers from, and who know the history of the claimant, not a HCP who most likely has no idea about such problems.

Going down that line could lead to inappropriate treatments being given to people who a) don't need them, and b) could suffer further because of them.

Errata

I doubt health professionals will happily provide inappropriate treatments which result in the patient's deterioration.

dori2o

Errata wrote: »

I doubt health professionals will happily provide inappropriate treatments which result in the patient's deterioration.

Isn't there enough evidence of ATOS providing information which results in the patient's deterioration from the way they handle the WCA?

I personally wouldn't accept advice from a consultant that specialises in Cancer, or Paediatrics, or even General Care/Nursing for a condition which revolves around damage to nerves, bones and muscles. It isn't their area of experise and therefore any advice they give on a subject they know little about is questionable.

Thats why there are different disciplines of medicine, so the best people, who have understandings of that specific discipline, treat those who suffer from that condition illness.

Would you like a Chiropodist or a dentist performing brain surgery on you? It's the same principle.

Poppie68

I seem to be missing alot today....

I cant see any report mentioning ATOS being the provider for these services.
Or is this again another misleading assumption?

Errata

Would you like a Chiropodist or a dentist performing brain surgery on you? It's the same principle.

Find me a chiropodist or dentist who would happily do that and I'll answer your question.

dori2o

Errata wrote: »

Find me a chiropodist or dentist who would happily do that and I'll answer your question.

Then why should a HCP be willing to give advice on possible therapies/treatments for conditions/illnesses they know nothing about in this hairbrained Gov't scheme?

dori2o

Poppie68 wrote: »

I seem to be missing alot today....

I cant see any report mentioning ATOS being the provider for these services.
Or is this again another misleading assumption?

Considering ATOS is the Governments 'go to' organisation for all things Health related, I think we can safely assume that they will be involved.

clemmatis

Poppie68 wrote: »

I seem to be missing alot today....

I cant see any report mentioning ATOS being the provider for these services.
Or is this again another misleading assumption?

It needn't necessarily be ATOS, but it does need to be (because of course it will be privatized) a large private company that can provide "health care professionals" to tell people what treatment would be suitable and what they have to get.

The story says the scheme will begin with alcoholics and drug addicts, But isn't there a shortage of NHS rehab centres?

No problem I guess, pay another large private company to set up more centres

After all, the country's awash with money...

I just found these accounts

Alcohol addition is an awful afliction - my wife is in a very bad way, I've had to move out with the kids and am trying to juggle caring for her and the kids. Social services are involved, but there seems to be no help for her. She has threatened suicide and is incapable of looking after herself. I am at my wits end. But does the NHS care - no. Does anyone know of any NHS funded residential rehab centres in the north of England? I fear she will continue to deteriorate until she dies if no one can help

and

I have been alcohol free for 9 months. I did not get any help from the NHS and had to go private.

and

I'd struggled through the DT's a few times before alone and was lucky to make it out alive. I knew that without assistance on this particular occasion my body would not be able to cope with it and if I had to go through withdrawal I wouldn't make it out alive. Over the course of about a week I visited my GP and hospital several times to ask for help and every time I was sent home with the advice - "Drink more alcohol". Seriously, doctors told me to drink more.

In the end I went to a private clinic,

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/alcohol/Pages/Alcoholsupport.aspx

Just to add that I'd be in favour of pushing all alcoholics and all drug addicts to get treatment, not just the ones who receive certain benefits.

rogerblack

On the other side.
ESA is also claimed by a _LARGE_ number of people with - for example - bad backs, or damaged in some way limbs.
In many of these cases, appropriate early treatment can _vastly_ speed recovery, a return to work, and even improve the health outcome.

The problem, as always is the funding, and the staff training.

Do you see someone that understands your condition, and believes you, or someone that has had 4 weeks of training, including a whole 20 minutes on your condition, which they diddn't watch, as they know it's not a 'real' condition.

Even if they do understand your main condition, does the same apply for any others that may be limiting your ability to work?

If done well, this is a totally positive thing.
If done badly, combined with the new sanctions regimen, it could be a nightmare for many.

Unfortuately, if the primary aim is saving money, you're not likely to start out in the right way by actually helping people with expensive therapies.