Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Whether benefit entitlement for people with addictions or obesity should be linked to accepting treatment
What I’ve seen so far of this review is suspiciously vague: the following points occur:
Why are addiction and obesity being linked in this way? Other than providing useful scapegoats, what links them?
Which benefits are under discussion? What changes in entitlement are proposed?
There are NO benefits specifically for addiction or obesity – but this is not made clear
There are already measures to disqualify people from ESA for non-cooperation with treatment etc
How will DWP identify addiction/obesity as the main issue when health problems are complex and multiple?
Will benefit still stop/be reduced even if the claimant has another condition that entitles them to benefit?
What work has been done on causation? Has it been discovered if addiction pushes people into poverty or if poverty itself can generate drug and alcohol problems? Is a mixed picture not likely? Should this not be established before any sweeping changes?
The ethics of forced treatment - Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative chair of the Commons Health Select Committee and a former GP, said the government must proceed with caution if it wanted to directly link welfare payments to medical treatment.
“It is a form of coercion for consent,” she told the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire Show.
“I think that is ethically unacceptable. I think it would be very difficult for any doctor to take part in treating a patient without valid consent and this would invalidate their consent if it was linked to conditionality to benefits. After all, it would not be effective - we know coerced treatments tend not to work.” (BBC News)
The effect of punitive measures upon vulnerable people and their families – the benefits system is already excessively punitive, why add more impoverishing punishments?
Claimants will be forced to turn for short-term help to already-overstretched local emergency funds and Food Banks
Thoughts?
You know what to do.
How to respond
Responses should be limited to five sides of A4 paper, or equivalent.
Please send your responses, or any queries about the subject matter of this call for evidence, to:
• Post:
Addiction and Obesity Independent Review Team
Department for Work and Pensions
Ground Floor
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London
SW1H 9NA
• Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Please ensure your response reaches us by 5pm on Friday 11 September 2015. When responding, please state whether you are doing so as an individual or representing the views of an organisation. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please make it clear who the organisation represents and, where applicable, how the views of members were assembled. We will acknowledge your
response. We may be in touch to follow up on your response; if you would prefer us not to do so, please note this when responding.
yep - my post was more by way of preparing a response and seeing what others thought.
Is it possible that what govt has in mind is not treatment provided by health professionals and other suitable qualified persons but cheap and chearful ‘lifestyle change’ courses provided largely by the private sector like the Work Programme etc largely to the benefit of shareholders?
Is the NHS in a position to treat all the claimants whom it is determined would benefit from such provision by their (suitably qualified to determine such a complex question) Work Coach?
Is it possible that what govt has in mind is not treatment provided by health professionals and other suitable qualified persons but cheap and chearful ‘lifestyle change’ courses provided largely by the private sector like the Work Programme etc largely to the benefit of shareholders?
Is the NHS in a position to treat all the claimants whom it is determined would benefit from such provision by their (suitably qualified to determine such a complex question) Work Coach?
My thought exactly - probably some group CBT from your friendly local IAPT service.
In the updated PIP Assessment Guide the commentary on Taking Nutrition descriptor D has been changed from:
“may apply to claimants who need to be reminded to eat or who need prompting about portion size”
to a similar intro followed by :
“In cases where obesity is a factor through the claimant’s lifestyle choices then this descriptor would not apply”
Coincidence?
Someone should contact Channel5 to see if they fancy sponsoring this thread.
That’s page 96 under Activity 2D, folks. Rejoice, for they have found a new demographic ripe for a kicking. How do they get to judge that obesity is a ‘lifestyle choice’? How do they define this? What a nasty, insidious little addition.
Isn’t PIP different to ESA?
UK government proposals to strip obese or drug-addicted welfare claimants of benefits if they refuse treatment may violate medical ethics, the president of the British Psychological Society has said.
Jamie Hacker-Hughes, whose organisation represents psychologists in the UK, said people should not be coerced into accepting psychological treatment and, if they were, evidence shows it would not work.
He said: “There is a major issue around consent, because as psychologists we offer interventions but everybody has got a right to accept or refuse treatment. So we have got a big concern about coercion.”
UK proposals to strip obese claimants of benefits ‘flawed and unethical’
Since when did being ‘flawed and unethical’ stop them?
How do they get to judge that obesity is a ‘lifestyle choice’? How do they define this?
I blame science and medicine
Obesity is generally caused by eating too much and moving too little.
If you consume high amounts of energy from your diet, particularly from fat and sugars, but do not burn off the energy through exercise and physical activity, much of the surplus energy is then stored by the body as fat.
Not to mention wilfully vague . We don’t know, pace the comment above, which benefits they are referring to. We don’t know what they will do to said benefits. We don’t know what is meant by ‘treatment’. The call for evidence is short, and not well-defined. What this has, however, done, is unleash a storm of invective about ‘fats’ and ‘junkies’ using up ‘taxpayers’ money’ to ‘take it easy’ for life. And that’s just the below-the-line outbursts in the lily-livered liberal Guardian. Goodness knows what else is out there…
How do they get to judge that obesity is a ‘lifestyle choice’? How do they define this?
I blame science and medicine
Obesity is generally caused by eating too much and moving too little.
If you consume high amounts of energy from your diet, particularly from fat and sugars, but do not burn off the energy through exercise and physical activity, much of the surplus energy is then stored by the body as fat.
That doesn’t address the invitation to judge ‘lifestyle choice’ or to ignore any number of other complications around obesity. There appears to be a simplistic view that people say ‘I will be fat and claim benefits’. Dangerous and nasty.
Obesity does not happen overnight. It develops gradually over time, as a result of poor diet and lifestyle choices, such as:
eating large amounts of processed or fast food that is high in fat and sugar
drinking too much alcohol – alcohol contains a lot of calories, and people who drink heavily are often overweight
eating out a lot – you may be tempted to also have a starter or dessert in a restaurant, and the food can be higher in fat and sugar
eating larger portions than you need – you may be encouraged to eat too much if your friends or relatives are also eating large portions
drinking too many sugary drinks – including soft drinks and fruit juice
comfort eating – if you feel depressed or have low self-esteem, you may eat to make yourself feel better
Unhealthy eating habits tend to run in families, as you learn bad eating habits from your parents when you are young and continue them into adulthood.
Part of my response is that the issue of obesity is the province of health and food policy - not benefits.