"Registered Disabled"?

Confuseddot

I keep asking the same question that no one seems to be able to answer how do you define disabled, its very sensitive issue and being honest not one I think there is any easy answer too.


Could it be a list of certain illnesses and conditions defines you as disabled ? Who is going to identify this list, get people on it and confirm that the people on it have the said condition ?


Then there is the argument some people with the same condition and with similar levels of the condition where one considers themselves disabled whether the other person does not.


Using PIP/DLA as the passport to further disabled perks as it was is not ideal but if you have a better system then feel free to speak to up.

nannytone_2

i suppose i would consider any condition that leaves people significantly outside the 'norm' as a disability.
i struggled with the term 'disabled' for many years, and to be honest, on this forum is the only place that i actually use the term ' i am disabled'
i know my sight is ce@P but i always think of disability as being more of a physical thing, where i have a sensory impairment.
by the same token, i also dont consider myself to be middle aged

jlawrence

nannytone wrote: »

they are NOT saying that at all.
money intended to pay for care/mobility needs ( PIP ) IS available to you but you refuse to claim it.
ESA is an 'out of work' benefit, just the same as JSA. it is not a disability benefit
it is paid at a higher rate to reflect that fact that it may be some time before ( if ever) you can return to work.
if you had claimed it when your contributions were up to date, then you would have stood a chance at conts based ESA...
but again you CHOSE not to.
that is the reason that the DWP are saying you need to live off your 100k

Thanks Nanny, yes it appears that I am confusing one benefit with another. I thought that after the accident it was the 'norm' to try and support yourself with the money that had been saved up. Otherwise what was the point in having savings. Now that the savings (apart from the £100,000 which aren't savings in my opinion) I find that by doing the right thing leads us into problems as it was the wrong thing?
And they say that claiming benefits is quite easy.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Confuseddot wrote: »

I keep asking the same question that no one seems to be able to answer how do you define disabled, its very sensitive issue and being honest not one I think there is any easy answer too.


Could it be a list of certain illnesses and conditions defines you as disabled ? Who is going to identify this list, get people on it and confirm that the people on it have the said condition ?


Then there is the argument some people with the same condition and with similar levels of the condition where one considers themselves disabled whether the other person does not.


Using PIP/DLA as the passport to further disabled perks as it was is not ideal but if you have a better system then feel free to speak to up.

I've been asking that in a non confrontational way for years, and there is no one answer, each individual will argue that their illness is a disability and their personal disability type is more important than any other disability type. The nearest medical definitions that exist are the old DM's staff guidance advice on common medical conditions in DLA/AA claims, their treatment, the likely disabling effects together with the likely impact on ability to self care and get around. It, the debate, always descends into each individual bleating that their personal deafness is worse than blindness and legless is worse than both etc. I agree and support your call - if anyone has a better method than DLA/PIP evidence - feel free to speak to up - and show us this alternative register of disabled.

Indie_Kid

Confuseddot wrote: »

I keep asking the same question that no one seems to be able to answer how do you define disabled, its very sensitive issue and being honest not one I think there is any easy answer too.

For me, it's when you have a condition which affects your life in some way, which I believe is pretty much what the Equalities Act says.

Could it be a list of certain illnesses and conditions defines you as disabled ? Who is going to identify this list, get people on it and confirm that the people on it have the said condition ?

I don't agree with this. You have people who have a certain condition who have no problems at all going about their life. You then have those with the same diagnosis who need help all the time, can't hold down a job, etc.

I was once told that I "can't be that disabled because I've just been diagnosed". Yes, because it's only just come on and for the other condition, well, like others, I was given other diagnoses before.

Using PIP/DLA as the passport to further disabled perks as it was is not ideal but if you have a better system then feel free to speak to up.

I don't think we'll ever have a system that works.

jlawrence

Indie_Kid wrote: »

I don't think we'll ever have a system that works.

Hi Indie, I must agree with you. I suppose any system is better than no system, even if it does fail many. But on the bright side, at least I haven't got a piece of paper that tells everyone that I am disabled. Just a bit peeved that we can't access the disabled persons rail card though.

Confuseddot

Indie_Kid wrote: »

For me, it's when you have a condition which affects your life in some way, which I believe is pretty much what the Equalities Act says.

Well I believe we have to agree to disagree as I don't think that someone who has a stutter should be classed as disabled.

Indie_Kid wrote: »

I don't agree with this. You have people who have a certain condition who have no problems at all going about their life. You then have those with the same diagnosis who need help all the time, can't hold down a job, etc.

I suppose it depends on the condition but one person just may be more effective with managing the symptoms, some people like to be victims(not saying that this is always the case) but should we reward those who make no effort to help themselves ? I know of twins with similar levels of cerebral palsy one is currently at a "normal" university studying with very little support and the other is a "special needs" university is wheelchair bound and requires a lot of care. It would be somewhat harsh then to class the first twin as not disabled as he has chosen to try and live his life the best he can.

nannytone_2

people are different. i really obhect to your 'playing the victim' comment.
cerebral palsy is a complicated consition. just because 1 twin is at mainstream uni, doesnt mean the other is 'playing the victim'! je just obviously cant manage as well.
some people cope well with pain, others are bedbound with a splinter!
just because they dont cope as well doesnt make them a 'victim' ... it makes them human!

Indie_Kid

I know someone with a stutter. It's definitely disabling. He's so hard to understand. I am hard to understand at times too due to the way I talk.

jlawrence

nannytone wrote: »

people are different. i really obhect to your 'playing the victim' comment.
cerebral palsy is a complicated consition. just because 1 twin is at mainstream uni, doesnt mean the other is 'playing the victim'! je just obviously cant manage as well.
some people cope well with pain, others are bedbound with a splinter!
just because they dont cope as well doesnt make them a 'victim' ... it makes them human!

not just human but a candidate for a successful disability benefit payout. Who in their right mind is going to tell the DWP that the level of pain is no where near as bad as they say it is if it can't be proven one way or the other?
It's only human nature to play on a disability if the intended result is a large tax free monetary payment