Disabled but fit for work? - Make a will

[Observer]

Is there a direct correlation or are these people who would have died anyway? Has anyone of working age died since 2011 or is death whilst of working age just limited to those who have been assessed by the DWP?

Quote:

...the data showed a decline in the mortality rate of all benefit claimants - the number of deaths per 100,000 people - from 822 to 723 between 2003 and 2013.

This was slower, proportionally, than the decline in the mortality rate of the general population, which fell from 305 to 240 in the same period, according to the statistics.

Hope that helps.

That does. But I think it will be ignored. The mortality rate is higher in this particular group and the rate of reduction is slower than everyone else.

Since the reforms were implemented in 2011 they alone cannot be held responsible for all deaths although it possible Le that the reforms have lead to some deaths.

Except these deaths are specifically of sick people who have been fount fit for work. It is nothing to do with the general mortality rate.

Dying from your disability is different from dying. As I've said elsewhere, you've already made your mind up without fully assessing the evidence.

You are assuming correlation equals causation but there is no evidence (yet) to suggest otherwise

I think the difference is dying when you are sick and dying when you are not sick.

You've got it. People die all the time whether disabled or not. I'm asking the question of whether the mortality rate of this group is outside of what you would expect for this group.

If they are sick enough to die how can they be found fit for work?

I think you have just stumbled upon the flaw in the system.

[bluebirds over.......]

Hadn't noticed this before...

Quote:

Tottie left to what lot? You sound like a right Hooray Henry.

[headlight]

Doctor signs them unfit for work, ATOS or whoever working on behalf of DWP signs them fit for work, within 2 weeks they are dead

headlight

All Feedback is asking for is the figure for what number of deaths you would ordinaily expect from a population of the same size over the same time peiod. It would be even better if we could somehow use the same segment of society, if we had statistics of people dying on sickness benefits before the Tory changes.

It is quite prroper and logical for him to ask.

In fact, quoting this figure would actually make the news item even more powerful, assuming it is a much higher figure than would ordinarily be expected.

I know exactly what he is up to

So why argue with him? What if the number is lower than what would ordinarily be expected to die? Suddenly the changes to the benefit system would seem to have beneficial health effects for many previous claimants!

Most right-minded people would see this for what it is - an attack on the weakest in society.

Also, please bear in mind that I'm as left wing as they come.

[Observer]

All Feedback is asking for is the figure for what number of deaths you would ordinaily expect from a population of the same size over the same time peiod. It would be even better if we could somehow use the same segment of society, if we had statistics of people dying on sickness benefits before the Tory changes.

It is quite prroper and logical for him to ask.

In fact, quoting this figure would actually make the news item even more powerful, assuming it is a much higher figure than would ordinarily be expected.

I know exactly what he is up to

So why argue with him? What if the number is lower than what would ordinarily be expected to die? Suddenly the changes to the benefit system would seem to have beneficial health effects for many previous claimants!

Most right-minded people would see this for what it is - an attack on the weakest in society.

How can you see it as that if you don't know what number of dead you would odinarily expect from a similair population (size and general health) over the same length of tiume?

Just search the internet for real world examples

All Feedback is asking for is the figure for what number of deaths you would ordinaily expect from a population of the same size over the same time peiod. It would be even better if we could somehow use the same segment of society, if we had statistics of people dying on sickness benefits before the Tory changes.

It is quite prroper and logical for him to ask.

In fact, quoting this figure would actually make the news item even more powerful, assuming it is a much higher figure than would ordinarily be expected.

I know exactly what he is up to

So why argue with him? What if the number is lower than what would ordinarily be expected to die? Suddenly the changes to the benefit system would seem to have beneficial health effects for many previous claimants!

Most right-minded people would see this for what it is - an attack on the weakest in society.

How can you see it as that if you don't know what number of dead you would odinarily expect from a similair population (size and general health) over the same length of tiume?

From empirical evidence.

However, todays headline about the number of dead would have been much better served if there was also info on the number of dead we would ordinarily expect to see. Was that purposefully left off in order to throw a smokescreen over an embarrasing stastic? Who knows?

[bobh]

Doctor signs them unfit for work, ATOS or whoever working on behalf of DWP signs them fit for work, within 2 weeks they are dead

Therefore I am still alive

[jeepster]

Doctor signs them unfit for work, ATOS or whoever working on behalf of DWP signs them fit for work, within 2 weeks they are dead

This is so so true.I do not know people who have died,but 2 people after their atos assessment ended up in hospital.They just have a tick list,how did you get here ect,if you say on the bus or i can walk a 100 yrds they are fcked.

[Observer]

All Feedback is asking for is the figure for what number of deaths you would ordinaily expect from a population of the same size over the same time peiod. It would be even better if we could somehow use the same segment of society, if we had statistics of people dying on sickness benefits before the Tory changes.

It is quite prroper and logical for him to ask.

In fact, quoting this figure would actually make the news item even more powerful, assuming it is a much higher figure than would ordinarily be expected.

I know exactly what he is up to

So why argue with him? What if the number is lower than what would ordinarily be expected to die? Suddenly the changes to the benefit system would seem to have beneficial health effects for many previous claimants!

Most right-minded people would see this for what it is - an attack on the weakest in society.

How can you see it as that if you don't know what number of dead you would odinarily expect from a similair population (size and general health) over the same length of tiume?

From empirical evidence.

Please explain, from empirical evidence.

I'm sure you know how Google works but it might save time if you could find one case where the deceased's doctor/consultant agreed with the DWP decision that their own diagnosis was wrong, and that their patient was in deed fit for work.

[Feedback]

No one is suggesting they may have been fit for work. The question is whether they would have died irrespective of whether they worked or not. We are asking is work the cause of death rather than the underlying disability or illness

[jeepster]

No one is suggesting they may have been fit for work. The question is whether they would have died irrespective of whether they worked or not. We are asking is work the cause of death rather than the underlying disability or illness

So if they have an illness that is terminal get them out to work,lung cancer,no problem we can get a few months work out of you lazy scrounger,you are going to die anyway.

[Ray Mears]

No one is suggesting they may have been fit for work. The question is whether they would have died irrespective of whether they worked or not. We are asking is work the cause of death rather than the underlying disability or illness

So if they have an illness that is terminal get them out to work,lung cancer,no problem we can get a few months work out of you lazy scrounger,you are going to die anyway.

Furthermore, just having an illness doesn't mean you don't have to work, even if it is potentially fatal. Plenty of people, for example, would still work even during treatment for cancer.

[jeepster]

No one is suggesting they may have been fit for work. The question is whether they would have died irrespective of whether they worked or not. We are asking is work the cause of death rather than the underlying disability or illness

So if they have an illness that is terminal get them out to work,lung cancer,no problem we can get a few months work out of you lazy scrounger,you are going to die anyway.

We're all dying, and they all would have died eventually. The use of the data in the way it has been is clearly disingenuous, as pointed out you would expect a certain number to die anyway.

I do not disagree with that some can work with cancer,but what about the ones who have their benefits stopped when they are to ill to work.

[Ray Mears]

No one is suggesting they may have been fit for work. The question is whether they would have died irrespective of whether they worked or not. We are asking is work the cause of death rather than the underlying disability or illness

So if they have an illness that is terminal get them out to work,lung cancer,no problem we can get a few months work out of you lazy scrounger,you are going to die anyway.

We're all dying, and they all would have died eventually. The use of the data in the way it has been is clearly disingenuous, as pointed out you would expect a certain number to die anyway.

Furthermore, just having an illness doesn't mean you don't have to work, even if it is potentially fatal. Plenty of people, for example, would still work even during treatment for cancer.

I'm not arguing that the current policy is right - just that the use of the data in this instance is a little disingenuous.

[chris]

this country is ****ed, we cannot even get, people who are fit and healthy into regular employment, let alone people who are supposedly fit for work but claiming sickness benefits.

its just another cop out by the government to try slash the welfare budget, because this country his more concerned about the people on the lowest earnings, rather than hitting the big hitters at the top of society, who have been fiddling tax for years, that is where the serious money would come from.

[Ray Mears]

this country is ****ed, we cannot even get, people who are fit and healthy into regular employment, let alone people who are supposedly fit for work but claiming sickness benefits.

Its people like you who get hit the hardest too, really feel for you chris.

[bobh]

No one is suggesting they may have been fit for work. The question is whether they would have died irrespective of whether they worked or not. We are asking is work the cause of death rather than the underlying disability or illness

So if they have an illness that is terminal get them out to work,lung cancer,no problem we can get a few months work out of you lazy scrounger,you are going to die anyway.

However, the point is that in many cases, the decision was plainly wrong, and likely to be based on targets or financial goals rather than the patients' needs.

[Observer]

No one is suggesting they may have been fit for work. The question is whether they would have died irrespective of whether they worked or not. We are asking is work the cause of death rather than the underlying disability or illness

So if they have an illness that is terminal get them out to work,lung cancer,no problem we can get a few months work out of you lazy scrounger,you are going to die anyway.

The whole point of this story is that they HAVE BEEN DECLARED FIT FOR WORK - and died shortly afterwards.

I have some friends and family working in the medical profession and they are totally disgusted by what is going on. In one case 30 years of experience is being undermined by people who are not even qualified to diagnose any medical condition.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

****ing Tory scum , feck them all

[headlight]

No one is suggesting they may have been fit for work. The question is whether they would have died irrespective of whether they worked or not. We are asking is work the cause of death rather than the underlying disability or illness

headlight

[A Quiet Monkfish]

****ing Tory scum , feck them all

wondered when you'd clock in

[Pearcey]

No one is suggesting they may have been fit for work. The question is whether they would have died irrespective of whether they worked or not. We are asking is work the cause of death rather than the underlying disability or illness

So if they have an illness that is terminal get them out to work,lung cancer,no problem we can get a few months work out of you lazy scrounger,you are going to die anyway.

The whole point of this story is that they HAVE BEEN DECLARED FIT FOR WORK - and died shortly afterwards.

I am amazed this policy isn't receiving far greater criticism than at present. In time I do think the likes of IDS will be held accountable. I certainly hope so.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

****ing Tory scum , feck them all

wondered when you'd clock in

I can't wait

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

No one is suggesting they may have been fit for work. The question is whether they would have died irrespective of whether they worked or not. We are asking is work the cause of death rather than the underlying disability or illness

So if they have an illness that is terminal get them out to work,lung cancer,no problem we can get a few months work out of you lazy scrounger,you are going to die anyway.

The whole point of this story is that they HAVE BEEN DECLARED FIT FOR WORK - and died shortly afterwards.

There *may* be instances where the decision has indirectly caused death, eg heart attack through stress.

But if you support these shocking tests , being made worse by the year by the Tory ****s then go and **** yourself

[lock n load]

They are so unfit for work that a medical professional such as a doctor, consultant etc has stated that they are unfit for work & signed them off.
An ATOS employee then decides that the doctor is wrong & that in fact they are fit for work & declares them fit for work in direct contradiction to their doctors diagnosis.
Within 2 weeks of that ATOS decision they are dead.
How can this be, in the words of one of Cameron"s favourite soundbites, "the right & fair thing to do" ?
Shouldn"t all these doctors, consultants etc be struck off then as obviously they can"t do their jobs ?
Maybe people should just go straight to ATOS if they think they are unfit for work & cut out their doctors as ATOS can over rule them anyway ?

headlight[/quote]

Just to put things in perspective and I am defending no one but ATOS (who no longer have the contract) are not at fault here neither are the new holders Of the contract Maximus.

The problem is with the WCA (Work capability assessment) its the DWP NOT Atos or Maximus who declares someone capable or incapable of work.

At a WCA interview the claimant is asked a set of questions and the assessor ticks a set of boxes baed on the answers given which each generates a score. As far as I now you have to reach 15 points or more to be declared unfit for work.

Now it is widely accepted that the WCA is not fit for purpose as it is to generalised and not tailored to an individual merely generic in its format.

When the WCA is submitted to the DWP it is they who decide if you are fit or unfit based on your score not based on any opinion from the assessor.