Unfairness of new benefits medicals

WHILE applauding the current Government’s policy to reduce the benefits burden by removing from it people who are not incapacitated and are milking the system, there must be transparent fairness both in the medical examinations and the decisions reached based upon them.

Unfortunately there is mounting evidence that the medical examinations carried out on behalf of the DWP seem conclusion-driven, designed to achieve reduction targets rather than an impartial review of the medical health of the benefit claimant – search for ATOS Medical Examinations on the internet and judge for yourself.

In our own case, my wife is suffering from a relatively uncommon and incurable cancer of the bone marrow. Coupled to the harsh chemotherapy regime used to bring it to some temporary control, this has severely reduced her mobility and ability to carry out many daily ordinary tasks.

She was called for examination last December by one of their doctors which consisted of a question and answer interview we could see was entirely computer-driven, with a very short physical test towards the end, some of which he accepted she was too disabled to attempt.

The report of this doctor was quite the worst medical report I have ever seen and appeared to be entirely designed to reduce her benefit entitlement. I was able to fill seven pages listing errors of omission (by failure to record valid and important facts he was both told and shown) of misrepresentations and conflicting descriptions of elements of her physical condition in different parts of the report.

The DWP seized upon this report to downgrade her disablement status and, no doubt, claim yet another success in very slightly reducing the benefit burden while subjecting her to a series of interviews that she is too ill to attend, and designed to force her back to employment she cannot physically do.

While most taxpayers applaud the motivation behind the Government’s policy, there seems to have crept into the process a degree of systemic unfairness which the DWP ignores at its peril.

Driving in a dust storm

From: SB Oliver, Churchill Grove, Heckmondwike, West Yorkshire.

GOOD and responsible drivers can deal with almost every hazard and incident that is in the road ahead because they leave ample space from the vehicle in front so as to be able to scan the road further ahead.

They don’t “need” a posted message on electronic signs advising them of the problem ahead, although they are helpful if an accident is further ahead which could cause standing traffic.

Andrew Mercer (Yorkshire Post, April 4) bemoans the lack of a message about dust storms blowing across the A1 on one day last week. I would have thought that just seeing the dust would have been sufficient warning to reduce speed.

Similarly, the presence of mist or fog should be obvious to all drivers. Motorists don’t need a sign saying “dark soon, prepare to put lights on” (but, sadly, some drivers do seem to need it).

Most roads do not have any electronic warning signs, so drivers should be capable of dealing with all visibility hazards competently.

Unfortunately there will always be the “Doubting Thomases” that see signs and messages and drive with the “I’ll believe it when I see it” attitude.

It is those drivers who drive too fast into mist, fog and, sometimes, even dust.

Identify yourselves

From: David Gray, Buttershaw Lane, Liversedge.

THERE must be many of your readers who are increasingly annoyed at receiving calls from persons and organisations who withhold their own telephone numbers.

Is it not time that we instigated pressure on our Parliamentarians to introduce a law, or change existing law, to make it necessary for every telephone call made in the United Kingdom to carry with it the information about the source of that call?

If anyone is attempting to invade the privacy of a call recipient, then surely it is the human right of that recipient to know from whom that contact is being sent.

If any person or organisation is not legitimate enough to reveal their identification, then the electronic dialling system should bar the forwarding of the call without exception.

Surely those of us who are inconvenienced, and sometimes upset, by these calls have some rights?

If callers come to our doors we expect them to show some identification (if they are representing a business), or offer some logical explanation if they are a neighbour etc.

On the offensive

From: Dai Woosnam, Woodrow Park, Scartho, Grimsby.

JUST when you thought that the early heroic work done by Lenny Bruce, Ken Tynan and St Bob Geldof to free us from the nonsense of being terrified by four letters had borne fruit, along comes Wayne Rooney who – with a face like a smacked bottom – bellows the word into a camera (Yorkshire Post, April 4)

Imagine he had shouted another four letter word – say “love” for instance.

I submit it would have been just as offensive.

The problem therefore is not the word, but the man Rooney himself.