Drug side effects and DWP

plum2002

princessdon wrote: »

Drugs do affect people differently. I once had to take some Co-Codamol. Seriously I was ill with them, really ill. I was floating (felt as if drunk), vomiting and gave me a headache.

When I mentioned to a co- workers she takes them daily and has never had a side effect.

That said I am completely unsure how anyone can answer the OP.

Are they saying that they have well documented long term side affects means they hit the descriptors that ATOS ignored, or merely asking if ATOS read the list of side affects that appear on the leaflets.

BTW - Just something as an aside, I had to give my child some Calpol this week and they hadn't had it before. On a child's calpol it warned of driving, drinking, use of machinery etc.

and they have zero effect on me, which completely illustrates the whole point, all side effects listed are only possible.

princessdon

plum2002 wrote: »

and they have zero effect on me, which completely illustrates the whole point, all side effects listed are only possible.

Which then begs what the OP actually wants replies on.

I have visions of someone sanctioned for none compliance saying I couldn't apply for the job because I took paracetamol that day to someone who is being unfairly treat by DWP (their name) because they have severe and well documented side effects that are not being considered.

Cuckooclock

Obviously we do all react differently to drugs I take a huge variety most of which say in the patient leaflet you shouldn't take with the others.
In March I was admitted to hospital as an emergency I was put on tramadol, after 3 days I couldn't concentrate could barely speak, think or even go to the toilet on my own.
However I take some other that people get serious side effects with I cope with easily.
I just think some people answer in a very bombastic way, which can upset people when they are worried, they don't want hugs just manners & a little understanding.:beer:

Yorkist

Sorry all, I've not really been specific enough. I'm not thinking about the patient information leaflet (and I too am surprised when I look at those only to find listed, as a 'side effect', the very condition that I'm taking them to cure!)
I'm thinking of the warnings that have to be printed on the label by law. These are, I believe, 'graded' in some way. 'Avoid' and 'do not' are terms used that are NOT interchangeable. They imply a different level of risk. I was wondering if anyone knew more about that side of things, but put it very badly!
I take on board that people metabolise drugs differently, although morphine makes me very slow, lethargic and badly inhibits my mental processes it doesn't put me to sleep. In fact I find it very hard to get to sleep. A 'contra reaction', I think it's called. I'd not considered this as a change in level of consciousness, having been told by some one advising me that this term was intended to cover epileptic absences, so that's a good tip I've got unintentionally! Thanks.
As far as I am aware ALL the professional bodies (BMA etc) have said that their members are bound by ALL rules and standards of performance regarding their employment as HCP's WHERE EVER they are working. So, despite what their own understanding of the reason they are being employed is, they cannot put aside professional responsibilities. Many appear to do just that, this forum is full of disgusting examples of this type of behaviour. This is how I'm trying to approach the problem. If a Dr. may face censure from their professional body because they disregarded likely side effects in an NHS situation then they face the same censure if doing the same thing for DWP etc. I'm not asking for debate on this point, I have done my research and decided that this is an angle I want to explore. I'm not pinning my hopes on any one course of action, though the exemptions due to risk of damage to health that one group is exploring looks brilliant to me, but trying to gain any knowledge that other people may have in a specific area. I know that, outside of a GP surgery, it's common for HCP's to have to take into account what medication a person is on and to consider likely side effects and how these may effect that person's mental and physical actions. An unconscious patient may have medication on them. The HCP will still be expected to consider why that drug has been prescribed and what it tells them of any likely problems that may present even when the patient cannot directly inform them directly, in some situations it will mean that the person may not even be capable of making a considered evaluation of their own abilities when conscious.
I hope this helps clear things up a bit. I'm not thinking of a couple of paracetamol, I'm thinking more of an HCP being presented with a list of 'hardcore' drugs. Surely there are some combinations that would indicate to any responsible HCP that this person is believed, by another HCP, to have problems that are hard to control and/or where they could reasonably be expected to be a hazard to themselves or others? If they ignore this information without satisfying themselves that there isn't a problem in the particular case in front of them then could they be guilty of a dereliction of duty (a phrase I've used as a lay person - what the professional body would term it I'm not sure).
Thanks to all who've replied. One thing that I feel is very important on a forum, especially one where there are some very ill people who may be at their whits end, is that we try not to take things personally. Hostility, aggression, lack of empathy or whatever, it could easily be a symptom of an illness that the poster is suffering from. Or it could be that they have had a bad day and taken something the wrong way or misunderstood a point. It could be for many reasons. Those who want to see all help withdrawn from the disabled seem to be doing so because they feel we are 'getting away with something' (shirking, being lazy etc.) that they're not. If we feel that some one on the forum is 'getting away' with being deliberately nasty so this gives us the right to be nasty back then we are condoning the thought process that has led to us all being in such an awful place re society. So while thanking everyone I hope I can also ask that others refrain from feeling they should 'stick up for me' although I did ask for lenient treatment as a newbie! I believe all comments were meant constructively. Cheers, Yorkist

Muttleythefrog

I think it's a tricky area.... indeed it brings into question the background of the HCP who may only be a physiotherapist... possibly not someone with even basic knowledge of common drugs' side effects. HCPs will have no doubt expectations on them in line with what you seem to think in terms of professional conduct and duty of care.. However I think in the case of appealing a decision... presumably for something like the WCA of ESA... the emphasis is really on the claimant to argue that the effects of a drug (which are so likely variant person to person anyway) are such that they raise the applicability of particular descriptors. I think it would be a fight lost to argue that the process should investigate whether side effects do exist that are descriptor triggering unless the claimant, or other evidence made available, states that such effects exist and are relevant to the WCA. At the end of the day there would be an argument that these are not medicals... but disability assessments... these assessments aren't set up to investigate illnesses and treatments but rather the disabling effects arising from injuries, illnesses or disabilities. And if the process fails to correctly identify disabling effects... however they arise... then that surely would be grounds for appeal if relevant descriptors were not found to apply that should be.

kaya

Drug manufacturers list every possible side effect to cover their own !!!!!! , it's a legal thing . However if you were to list every single side effect on a DWP form I don't see how they would have a point to argue from that you didn't suffer from them , we are all different and wouldn't all experience the Same effects from any drug and I believe that the decision makers must take evidence over opinion when making their decisions, if the med says it can make you drowsy and you tell the dwp you are suffering from drowsiness as a side effect of that medication in my opinion they must take that into account ( unless some !!!!!! employee at the dwp believes he has better medical knowledge than a multi billion pound pharma company) , I listed drowsiness and stupidity on my form as a result of morphine, I also listed severe diarrhoea and sickness on there as they are the effects of opiate withdrawal which I suffer from when I stop taking them, I believe loss of bowel control is worth 15 points to them and points make prizes

Yorkist

Well, it was interesting! I'd have thought it was the type of question that someone working in health care, especially those in the upper echelon, would have enjoyed getting their teeth into! But, sadly, not.
Anyway, my 'source on the inside' (a worker in healthcare) says it's a valid point. There are certain types of drug and certain combinations of drugs that should set warning bells ringing in the heads of suitably qualified HCP's. If the HCP isn't qualified to have an opinion on the matter then they should seek the advice of someone who is.
Although Atos say their HCP's don't diagnose they DO make a recommendation. Although Atos and DWP have been very good at brainwashing us all into thinking that the descriptors are all that count and they can hide behind them, this is not the whole story. Can't say too much at this time but PLEASE bare in mind that all HCP's HAVE TO comply with the standards of their own governing body REGARDLESS OF WHO EMPLOYS THEM.
Seen my Dr and she's very keen to support me in claiming exemption 35 as being put in WRAG has clearly caused me harm and any attempts by me to comply with the requirements of WRAG will certainly do me more damage. For those who haven't heard, a group have sought advice from Counsel and been told that the word 'anybody' in the exemption (same in exemption 29) when referring to harm or danger INCLUDES the claimant. If being put into a certain group is going to cause you significant harm then you are excluded from being put in that group BY LAW. You need your GP, consultant etc. to agree with you and write a letter to support you. It's important that this letter quotes the relevant exemption.
I'm not sure if I'll be back or not. If what I'm looking at works then I'll certainly post again and I've not ruled out asking for further help on here. The more I've researched the more convinced I am that the HCP's are the weak link here. If they can be proven to be working in a manner outwith the standards of their governing body then they risk never working in Britain again!
Good luck, Yorkist:beer:

skipsmum

One of my meds says in the list of possible side effects
"may cause sudden death"
Which is worrying!

Big_is_beautiful

skipsmum wrote: »

One of my meds says in the list of possible side effects
"may cause sudden death"
Which is worrying!

Well as long as it doesn't happen while you are "working" then everything will be okay!

missapril75

skipsmum wrote: »

One of my meds says in the list of possible side effects
"may cause sudden death"
Which is worrying!

Would you prefer notice?