I just had the urge to share this sentence from an ESA medical report, which shows what happens when you use computerised reports without adapting them to the person in front of you.

I saw someone once who was suffering from Charcot's Foot, one of the very nastiest complications of diabetes. The sufferer loses all sensation in the foot due to diabetic neuropath, and is thus unaware of injuries to the foot which may then heal all crooked. The only cure is to have surgery on the foot and then rest it until the doctors are satisfied that it is fully healed, which (granted that diabetics don't heal well) can take many months). Using the foot before then is painless, but can cause irreversible damage which is likely to lead to ulcers, gangrene, and in due course amputation. This guy had attended the PCA only about a month after his operation and had been told not to walk on the foot for six months, or else.
And what did the doctor say? You guessed: "The customer's foot condition is very mild..."
The chair (as she was then) sent in a formal complaint to medical services at the insistence of the medical member, who was horrified.

I can't understand why the problems of this computer-generated medical assessment are so obvious to us advisers, but politicians and professionals seem oblivious. Last year, the BMA wrote to me that they were concerned about the deskilling of doctors and that they would have talks with Atos regarding LiMA, but I can only assume that it was a nice and polite chat.

This unprofessional and unfair system is allowed to stay, it has now been modified to assess people for ESA, and Atos will continue making profits from it.