Healing, disability and the social model.

This post is about how my christian faith interacts with the christian religion (or doesn't). Its not bible bashing, but wanted to make people aware of the content... This blogpost is dedicated to D who without realising it, helped me immensely with this concept last night. This blog is basically about that conversation and my thoughts around healing in a christian context.

So, the bible, written 2000 years ago says a lot about healing. But, fortunately for us society has moved on a bit since then. For a start, in the UK having an impairment is generally not seen as being sinful or somehow a punishment like it was back then. The concept of healing in the bible is very much centred on the illness or impairment being a problem and healing as a solution. For those with a bit of disability knowledge would immediately label that sort of thinking as 'medical model'. It is placed very much within the person, and the solution lies very much within the person.

In the 70's, 80's and 90's the rise of the social model transformed the concept of impairment and disability. No longer was impairment the problem, but it was society that was the problem for not adapting to the needs of a persons impairment and creating a disability. Unfortunately, it would appear, that churches haven't moved on like the rest of society, and still focus on a persons physical and mental state when it comes to healing.

I hate this idea. I don't need healing,  thank you very much. But before last night it was always for different reasons. It was because my impairment was a difference not a deficit, or that it was my impairment had a positive impact on my life etc etc etc. I had effectively fallen into the church model of disability, and responded to it in a medical self centred way.

However, if you put the social model and healing together, like my friend did last night (without realising it) you end up with this idea. It is no longer you that needs the healing, but it is society that needs it. It is society that is broken, has a problem with the way you are etc. and not you. It was as revolutionary as when i first heard about the social model. If the church thinks like this, then it would be a very interesting outcome indeed. Instead of the inevitable line of 'ill pray for you' that you get when you say your 'not well' to a christian, would they then say I'l pray that they'l provide you a 'ramp' instead?

Now I know this has the same problems as the social model, and that sometimes christian healing does have its place. However, the social model of disability applied to healing would surely transform what is an outdated concept of  illness, impairment and disability in the church?

I then went on to suggest that if we wanted a church that thought about healing in this way, then surely we would still need some form of healing ourselves? Basically, what this new way of healing is getting society to accept us as we are, but, then, how can we ask for this if we don't accept ourselves as we are?

I have come along way over the last year, accepting who I am, and having the confidence to say, this is who I am, this is what I need to make my life better and demanding better accessibility. But I fully accept that this has been a hard process to go through, but has resulted in a feeling of restoration and healing.

This is both in a christian and non christian context. Within social model ideology, the hidden and assumend pre requisite is that a person is happy with their impairment, and able to know what their own access needs are. You can not consider yourself disabled in a social model context without first defining what it means for you personally. You would stay at simply being impaired. There is a transition process that you go through of thinking that actually, this isnt my fault, but its society that could improve and not me.

I hope this has helped as much as it helped me to think about healing in a different way..

Posiition Statement.

This is for my uni work. Ultimately it will end up on my blog anyways, but this is just a first draft, that I am really wanting some peer feedback on. It is a position statement against this debate motion: The government’s proposal to use independent medical professionals to decide who does and doesn’t get the new DLA is the best solution.

Please read it, and if you want to make any comments please do. It will be fully referenced (I know, bad student who references AFTER they write the thing). I am really struggling with negative thinking at the moment and so I really need some unbiased opinions on it. Would it convince you that its a bad idea to go ahead with the medical exams? Go on, be a tory... see if I can convince you :)

The inevitable, inescapable future is that Disability Living Allowance is going to be replaced with a new benefit called personal independence payment. One of the big changes will be in the application process. No longer will disabled people have to fill in a 60-page tome about every depressing aspect of their existence, but according to the government anyway, be free to have a 'chat' with an independent assessor to determine eligibility. Sounds great right? No, no it isn't. The government might have dressed it up to look good, but the reality of this idea, and the fear that people have is deeply entrenched thanks to the Work Capability Assessment, the new medicals for the new incapacity benefit. Although the government says they are 'learning' from the mistakes of this, they still intend to use this model in the new benefit delivery.  That would be the medicals that even the designer and creator have condemned to the rubbish heap. So, what are the problems?

Firstly, the problem is that the governments definition of independence seems to have found from a dictionary that none of the British public are privy to. True independence can only be found when a person is doing something without influence from another person. This is not the case with the government’s proposals. As with the previous incarnation of the new style medical, the likelihood is that this work will be outsourced to a private company. It is in this monetary transaction that independence is traded in for profit. Think about it. The company’s clients are the government, their contract is with them, and it is in their best interests to comply with their client’s orders. As it is the stated aims of the government’s new Personal independence payment to reduce the caseload and expenditure, that is what will also be the company’s aims, and the statistics will reflect this. (As has happened with the new sickness benefits)

By implication, the government’s proposal casts doubt on the independence of the current system. In fact, they have even alluded to this themselves. Apart from the detailed, 60 page form that claimants have to fill in, there is also room for a 'statement from someone who knows you best', (something the government is getting rid of in the new process) and the opportunity for a person to nominate a medical professional to present evidence. In fact, by obtaining evidence from all these sources reduces the risk of a bad decision being made, and increases the independence and equality in the process. There is even provision for another medical assessment to be made in house by the DWP if the decision maker doesn't feel able to make a decision based on the evidence they have. I would argue that the current application process is more independent that what is being proposed, and that if the governments aim was that of true independence then they should simply expand their in house medical services, but keep the ethos of the current benefit, where the claimants needs and voice are placed firmly in the centre.

The second thing that is at risk with the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance is autonomy and authenticity. Although the current system can not be classed as wholly autonomous or even authentic, what it does do is directly involve disabled people and values their voice in making a decision about eligibility. The phrase ‘nothing about us 

without us’ has become one of the key principals of the disability movement and it is increasingly being adopted by different areas in society including this application process for DLA. The current ideology around this is that the claimant and their own medical professionals are the most authentic agents to provide a true picture of how their disability affects them. Contrary to popular opinion the application process is complex and uses many different pieces of evidence to support a claim. The focus isn’t medicalised, but the effect of impairment on a person’s life. The medical professionals current role is to simply verify the authenticity of the impairment and to provide any additional supporting evidence. The claimant has the autonomy to define their own experience within the confines of the other evidence gathered, and as a result the system is very effective with only a 0.5% rate of fraud.   The proposals to take away the claimants automy in the process will result in a shift of power to the medical professionals.

It is this shift in the power balance that is the third fatal flaw of this proposal that needs highlighting.  

This was another concern raised in the responsible reform report. For disabled people, the ability to be in control and have some power over their lives is key to their independence. The concept of self-determination is another key principal in the disability movement and it is another thing, which is under threat by the government’s proposal to give decision-making power to ‘independent’ doctors. This distinct shift in power away fro the claimant has been justified by the government with fairness in mind. However, what will result is an unbalanced and rigid system of medical professionals unable to cope with the complexities of a disabled persons experience, whose sole responsibility is to determine eligilibty. By reducing the ‘gatekeepers’ to the benefit to just independent medical professionals increases their power, responsibility and control exponentially. This will increase the risk of mistakes and poor decision-making. According to the Spartacus report the fear is that this proposal is too similar to the current sickness benefit system that has been widely acknowledged as failing (40% appeal success rate is evidence of this). Important decisions need to be made with as many stakeholders as possible. This reduces power to one agency and spreads it more evenly. This results in the claimant with some degree of control over their own experiences. The model that social services use is just one example of this.

Ultimately, the decision to use independent medical professionals to determine who does and doesn’t receive disability benefits is fatally flawed, and is widely feared. With the governments publicly declared aim to reduce the caseload by 20% when the fraud rate is at 0.5%, 500,000 disabled people will be taken off a benefit to which they were previously entitled. To use independent medical professionals will unfairly target people with certain impairments who find it difficult to define, easily shape and share their experiences. It will be a shift away from a benefit with disabled people at the centre of the decision making process and will result in a loss of power, control and ultimately a persons ability to live.

 

links for my essay..

I'm writing a Government vs spartacusreport essay at uni. I'm just using this space to keep a track of links I need, as I am having to use many computers. I would keep it by email, but might as well here... essay now written.. link to ll aspects includig full refernce list here: http://allbigideas.blogspot.com/2012/05/governments-proposal-to-use-independent.html

1) need for reform agreed with by all sides: "I accept that there needs to be changes to disability benefit" tgt here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6bv90Qx6x_sJ:www.guardian.co.uk/society/blog/2012/jan/17/disability-welfare+welfare+reform+disability+campaigners+acknowledges+need+for+it&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a (at 10:46am) and here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/17/disibility-living-allowance-overpayment

2)

3) miller: no inbuilt reassessment:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/17/disibility-living-allowance-overpayment
4: lifetime awards (miller:audio) http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9679000/9679650.stm

5)

6) disabld? just fill in a form http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060067/Disabled-benefit-Just-form-200-000-got-handouts-year-face-face-interview.html

7) discrediting from media: the media either ignored our struggle or discredited us with ever wilder rounds of "scrounger" headlines, creating a climate of fear and prejudice. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/08/disabled-people-welfare-reform-sham
8) lifetime awards: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9679000/9679650.stm
9) lifetime awards=lifetime illness http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/just-form-some-benefit-myths.html
10: legal duty to disclose change in circs: http://www.cpag.org.uk/cro/wrb/wrb196/reporting.htm

11:reassessments are a waste of money http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1493/149303.htm

12 n 13 : hatecrie nd the media http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1493/149303.htm

14: 0.5 % http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/index.php?page=fraud_error

15: (see 1)

16: what reform should be focused on: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/16095 Everyone agrees that the current system needs to be simplified and improved. But that is not achieved by cuts, shoddy statistics, late reporting, attempts to subvert parliamentary process (Lord Freud's procedural tactics last week) and statistical evasion. The case for a significant re-examination and re-think on the government's part is overwhelming.

17: ordfrued (see1)

18: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2010/dla-reform.shtml

19: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1493/149304.htm

20: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/welfare-reforms-sustainable-system

21: http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/latest-news2/news-focus/miller-holds-firm-on-dla-reform

22 www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dla-aa-6pp-factual.pdf


23: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Disabledpeople/DG_10022605

24 =: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1493/149304.htm (19)
25: see 14

26:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/feb/06/tanni-grey-thompson-video

27: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/01/work-capability-assessment

28 www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/personal-independence-payment-faqs.pdf

29:? 

32:   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1015/101502.htm     atos enquiry


Dear all confused about #esa, blue badges etc. The govt have deliberately altered criteria so ppl don't qualify. That simple, that evil
https://twitter.com/#!/BendyGirl/status/190392116302721025

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/12/atos-doctors-sign-official-secrets-act
ATOS and the O.S.A
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-17784012
REmploy protests
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/05/benefit-cuts-fuelling-abuse-disabled-people

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/feb/06/tanni-grey-thompson-video
T.G.T video, 500 thousand people, and fear.
http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/latest-news2/news-focus/miller-holds-firm-on-dla-reform
Agrree on need for reform
http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/latest-news2/medical-test-for-dla

http://www.cot.co.uk/event/health-and-disability-assessments-exploring-role-occupational-therapists

the failure of Condem logic

The condem government has announced today, plans to take away housing benefit from those under 25. It might sound good, in theory that all the jobless young people have to live with their parents until they find a job, or if they lose their job, but...

I have a problem with their plans. Well, actually, they have a problem with their plans. As it is direct contradiction of another plan of theirs. The so called 'bedroom tax' means that households who are seen to be over occupying their houses are only going to get housing benefit for the rooms they need. Effectively forcing them to down size.

So, heres a little scenario I like to call the failure of Condem logic.

Mr and Mrs Smith rent a 3 bed council house. They live their with their 2 children. As is usual, when the children reach 18, they move out. One of them has decided to go to university, and the other finds themselves a job and moves into a house share with some of their friends.

Now Mr and Mrs Smith are seen to be over occupying they are forced to downsize, and thanks to the help of the council, they move into a one bed flat, just right for their needs.

However, 3 years later, the first child finishes university and due to the job market can't find somewhere to live. So they have to claim benefits, but because of the new housing benefit policy can't claim housing benefit, and because of thie new housing policy can't move back with mum and dad because they have been forced to downsize. And then, the other childs job falls through and they have the same problem..

Is it just me that sees a flaw in this plan?