× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Work capability issues and ESA  →  Thread

Comments

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

mmmm

so it would seem that there is a doubling of the mortality rate between those in receipt of IB, and those now in the WRAG.  clearly raising questions

but it seems that’s about all you can draw from that unless and until someone digs down into the figures to the actual cases to know how and why all those people died

and i can’t see that doing that would be simple .......it would surely mean someone being able to have access to the records on all deaths in the period, their causes (by way of death certificate) and being able to correlate that with those people’s benefits history….

Surrey Adviser
forum member

Benefits and debt adviser - Esher CAB, Surrey

Send message

Total Posts: 222

Joined: 17 June 2010

I don’t think I understand this.  If it is an attempt to show that more people on benefits have been dying between 2011 and 2014 than died before should it not state the number of people claiming the relevant benefits at the times in question?  In other words, the deaths should be expressed as a % of the number of benefit claimants during each period.  I can’t see that anything else demonstrates anything.  The author’s apparent thesis (if I’ve understood it correctly) may be correct, but the figures quoted just cannot be used to support it because they are so incomplete.

John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

Derek - 09 December 2016 08:45 PM

I don’t think I understand this.  If it is an attempt to show that more people on benefits have been dying between 2011 and 2014 than died before should it not state the number of people claiming the relevant benefits at the times in question?  In other words, the deaths should be expressed as a % of the number of benefit claimants during each period.  I can’t see that anything else demonstrates anything.  The author’s apparent thesis (if I’ve understood it correctly) may be correct, but the figures quoted just cannot be used to support it because they are so incomplete.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3211

Joined: 7 January 2016

On a related note, I’ve just been made aware of this rather shocking report from the Department of Health, looking at Suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and self-harm” as part of it’s Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2014, which in turn underpins a wider suicide prevention strategy. They look at various demographics and associated issues, but the statistics related to ESA claimants are very worrying and extreme - see pages 16 and 17.

Two thirds of people in receipt of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) (66.4%) had thought about taking their life, approaching half had made a suicide attempt (43.2%), and a third reported self-harming (33.5%); indicating that this is a population in great need of support. People in receipt of other benefits also had higher rates of suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts and self-harm than those who did not receive these benefits