Ex-Atos HCP exposes WCA’s bias against the sick

This January I wrote what turned out to be quite an extended piece about the conceptual basis underpinning the WCA; about the ideas that were pushed from certain quarters in order that the WCA could be carried out in the way it has been. Which has been towards the end of denying people their legitimate entitlement to health related benefits. It was published here on the International Green Socialist site, and attracted a large number of comments, many of which expanded on points and introduced material which the limitations of the article prohibited, such as the involvement of Big Insurance Company, Unum in these ‘reforms’ – to what they evidently anticipated would be their eventual gain.

One of the aspects of my analysis, that I thought very important to point out, was the glaring bias among the wide documentation underpinning the whole process, from Atos’ own advice to their ‘disability analysts’, to the government’s Employment and Support Allowance regulations, and even to guidelines for GPs assessing conditions. This bias which initially grabbed my attention through scrutinising my own and others’ WCA reports, expanded into a pattern permeating these other instruments/literature. The form it takes, that of deliberately undermining the claims a person makes about how their illness/disability affects their capacity to work, is to the discredit of  not only Atos, but also the DWP and the government.

It has been very gratifying, then, to come across this account by one of Atos’ ex Healthcare Professionals, which bears out my own, and others’, observations that the process underlying the WCA is a ‘sham’.

“I worked for Atos as a ‘disability analyst’ thinking I would be helping vulnerable people to access their benefits,” she said.

“I soon discovered that nothing could be further from the truth. The rules laid down by the bosses are designed to catch people out.”

Jean worked for Atos Healthcare in Scotland, but found she was unable to continue in a role which went against her professional, and personal, ethics.

“The job was making me sick,” she said. “It’s against my principles to treat people with long term illnesses in such a disgusting way, so I had to give it up.

“People go into those interviews and talk openly to you because you are a nurse and they trust you.

“Then your skills are used against them, to take away their benefits and destroy their lives.

“I can’t be a part of that.”

Its to be hoped that, similarly to the A4e scandal, more and more Atos Healthcare personnel will have the courage to tell the truth about this shameful process.

 

 

 

 

 

Cecilia’s Story: Fighting Cancer But Atos Find Her ‘Fit’ For Work.

The Belfast Telegraph has reported on the case of Cecilia Burns, a lady who has experienced, as so many have before her, the de-personalisation, humiliation, intimidation and bafflement which results from being processed through this government’s screening instrument for health related benefits – the WCA. The story is predictably familiar:

“It was basically sitting in front of a computer screen answering questions, can you do this? Can you do that? Lift your legs, move your arms, head, hunker down.“

This at a time when, as she informed Atos, she was still undergoing chemotherapy in her fight against cancer. Despite this fact she was coerced into attending the assessment with the threat that her benefits would be cut if she did not.

Like many people before her, Cecilia had innocently believed that the seriousness of her illness would entitle her to some respect, and that if the system was fair then she had nothing to fear. Instead, also like countless claimants before her, Mrs Burns was shocked to find herself declared ‘fit’.

“When I got the letter telling me I started to cry. I thought, ‘This can’t be happening to me’.

She posed the questions: “How can someone do an assessment when they didn’t have my medical notes, they weren’t a doctor, and how does lifting your arm or leg deal with you having cancer treatment?”

Well, the reason, Mrs Burns, is that the WCA was designed with great selectivity and narrowness of the ‘capabilities’ upon which people are assessed. These criteria work to exclude the majority from entitlement to benefit. That is its purpose.

Many people like Cecilia, who has worked and paid taxes for over 30 years, are under the impression that the government will act with good faith toward them should they fall ill. Little wonder that so many, the first time they reach out for support and fall foul of this deceitful process, are left with nothing more than a sense of stinging betrayal.

Only Atos could ‘believe’ Robin Mitchell is fit for work

“A PARKINSON’S disease sufferer whom doctors say has no chance of getting better is being forced to undergo repeated Government checks to see if he can return to work.”

Robin has Parkinson’s disease. His story was recently by covered by the Derbyshire Telegraph. Though the severity of his condition should be obvious to anyone, a nurse working for Atos Healthcare judged “that a return to work could be considered in 18 months”, despite the fact that Robin’s wife has had to cut her working hours to look after him. Robin had an unbroken work record of 42 years until ill-health forced him to leave.

Like Karen, ‘Peter’ and ‘Marie’, Robin, too, is stuck on Atos’ Roundabout, trapped in a cycle of constant re-testing and appealing. A process which is guaranteed to grind anyone down, let alone the sick and disabled, for whom it is closer to abuse.

An ex-work colleague has posted this message from Robin’s former boss, which demonstrates clearly his opinion of Atos’ assessment of his evidently valued former employee. I am posting the message here in its entirety:

“I know Robin Mitchell as he worked for my company before he sadly had to take early retirement in 2008 due to his deteriorating health. I, together with my staff, would like to meet the idiot who thinks Robin might be able to return to work in the future as he/she clearly hadn’t assessed him properly. Robin has always been a hard worker and, given the opportunity, would have continued to contribute to our business but it was evident to everyone that his Parkinson’s was forcing him into the position where he needed to take early retirement. Robin had contributed to society all of his life and it is only right that he should be supported at this stage of his illness. I am in favour of assessment – but only on the condition the process is fair. It is quite evident from Robin’s case that the assessment process does not work and is not fair. Robin, and I am sure he is not alone, should not be faced with this ridiculous situation where he is suffering from unnecessary stress for something that is totally avoidable. I would like extend an invitation to a representative from ATOS to my offices to see the sort of work Robin was undertaking before he had to retire and explain what sort of job he might be able to do in the future that would be more suitable. I doubt they could.”

The Black Magic Roundabout of the WCA: Peter and Marie’s Stories.

Its becoming plainly evident that the majority of sick people going through the government’s Work Capability Assessment have a story to tell. The account varies according to which part of the Black Magic Roundabout they are forced off or simply give up.

This article focuses on the experiences of ‘Peter’ and ‘Marie’, both of whom have encountered the part of the process whereby they fail the WCA, though obviously suffering from considerable illness or disability, appeal and win, and are then forced to go through the WCA again. And fail again. And then must appeal again. And so on and on. The phrase ‘ad nauseum’ was never more appropriate for those who have no choice but to keep going round and round on this dizzying ride.

 

(Hello Atos! Here’s some more evidence of what your involvement in this glorious money-spinner  is doing to sick people.)

Karen’s Story

Social Welfare Advocacy blog has recently posted this personal account by Karen, someone who suffers from multiple serious health issues that severely limit her daily life. By any reasonable measure Karen should be eligible for the ESA Support Group, indefinitely. Instead she has been subjected to exceptionally poor treatment  by ‘the system’, including at the hands of a ‘stern and intimidating’ appeal tribunal, exposing her to  further distress, and has been placed in the WRAG (Work Related Activity Group).

At the end of my assessment she said;

“The people who check the forms, I believe are quite understanding and will have your best interests at heart and be sympathetic to your needs and place you in the right (support) group. If they do not place you in this group appeal it and you will win.”

“You are a genuinely ill person and are unemployable due to your multiple medical conditions.”

It is a courageous account of mistreatment at the hands of not only Atos, but also the tribunal part of the system. It hurts to read stories like these. And it inspires anger on behalf of these victims, for that is what they are. It is stories like this, and they are by far the norm, not the exeption, which give the lie to the government’s claims that this process is fair. It is anything but.

It is nothing but a systematic way of denying people their legitimate benefits. And it operates in a fearfully Kafkaesque way. I know that Atos have visited my blog recently. I know too that they have viewed my section on ‘my WCA experience, among other categories. Well, here you are Atos. Here is yet another real person whose life has been trampled on, and who has been caused extra suffering on top of her already considerable health issues. I hope you are proud.

And you, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling et al, you should certainly be hanging your heads in shame. Even were it only one person who could be said to be suffering in this way, it would be enough to discredit the whole process. Instead there are masses. No wonder more and more people are drawing comparisons with the nazis’ treatment of the disabled. This is a purge of the sick and vulnerable, those who should expect to be afforded some respect and allowed some dignity in their daily struggle against illness.

I never feel entirely comfortable with adopting a high moral tone in this way, because its what politicians do and we all know how that tends to turn out. But, come on, this is a no-brainer. Its only the thin shield of compliant press and media that is preventing the truth about this becoming a national scandal of the highest magnitude. But,as the purge continues, the number of people who will learn first hand, either through family or friendship networks, what a deceitful, shameful process this is will grow, and eventually the truth will out. Such a disgrace that so many will have had to suffer in order to make that happen.

We can only hope the ”tipping point’ of these stories is reached soon, and broader society is no longer able to ignore this state abuse of the sick and disabled, and those who support them.

Derbyshire Heart Condition Dad dies month after Atos find him fit for work.

The Derbyshire Times has related how Stephen Hill was found ‘fit’ for work at his WCA, but died of his medically diagnosed heart problems just a month later.

The article calls for ‘improvements’ to be made to the WCA. But, no, no. I’m sorry. ‘Improving’ WCAs just isn’t good enough. It can’t be ‘improved’ because its an outright fraud being perpetrated upon the sick and disabled. It was designed to be so, as anyone with half a brain can see if they will only examine the wording of the WCA and ESA regs and literature. Those in parliament, or either of the ‘Houses’ or ‘Special Committees’, who say otherwise are guilty of collusion in this fraud, or else they are so ignorant that they should not be allowed to hold the public offices that they do, one where people’s wellbeing is at stake. I hope I live long enough to see a realistic perspective brought to bear upon this issue, and the people behind it to be exposed and shamed. Sadly, there are a growing number of victims of this process who will not.

Just what kind of ‘Social Justice’ does Iain Duncan Smith believe in?

Is it the one whose meaning that we are accustomed to, or is it, in the Orwellian sense, its opposite?

Iain Duncan Smith surely professes to support the notion of ‘social justice’. He founded the Centre for Social Justice in 2004, is its Life Patron and served as its Chairman until joining the Cabinet in 2010. It would be more than reasonable, then, to expect him to be committed to the idea of social justice, particularly, considering his official post in government as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the area of work.

The International Labour Office (ILO, 2004) has identified certain principles which it asserts must be abided by in the creation of social policies in this respect if they are to be regarded as socially ‘just’. Guy Standing (2010) has picked out three which he considers most important with respect to ‘poverty alleviation’, which are as follows:

• A policy is socially just only if it improves the security and work prospects of the least secure groups in society (the security difference principle.)

• A policy is socially just only if it does not impose controls on some groups that are not imposed on the most free groups in society (the paternalism test principle)

• A policy is socially just if it enhances the rights of the recipient of benefits or services, and limits the discretionary power of the providers (the rights-not-charity principle).

Since the government’s current policies could not be further from fulfilling these basic principles one has to ask what form of  ‘social justice’ it is that Mr Iain Duncan Smith believes in?

Standing, G. (2011) ‘Labour Market Policies, Poverty and Insecurity’. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20: 260-269.

International Labour Office (ILO) (2004) ‘Economic Security for a Better World’. Geneva, Switzerland, Socio-Economic Security Programme, International Labour Office. (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/ses/info/publ/economic_security.htm)

The Problem of ‘Scientifically Unfounded Attitudes’: A BioPsychoSocial Analysis

A small, but select, number of individuals in our society can be seen to be suffering from the mysterious problem of “Scientifically Unfounded Attitudes“. This is a significant issue for society as a whole since those afflicted tend to hold high status, influential positions in the academic, state and corporate medical community, and have been complicit in cobbling together a rag bag of ideas (under the guise of a theory) which has had profoundly negative effects on many people’s lives, economically, socially and personally. This is also true of its effects on taxpayers money, a great deal of which has been wasted on spurious processes whose only objective, it seems, is to channel vast amounts of money into the pockets of private companies.

So how has this situation arisen? A biopsychosocial model is very helpful in the analysis of these individuals:
First it is necessary to address the ‘bio-medical’ element (in order to get it out of the way, which is the usual concern of these adherents). Exhaustive medical data is not available for this group, but considering their fairly advanced average  age, and the fact that they are still furiously active, and able to travel extensively around the world touting their ‘theories’ suggests that they belong to a privileged sector of the health spectrum. That is, they are those in whom illness is relatively absent. This is confirmed visibly by the absence of any ‘aids’ in their conduct of work. It can be reasonably assumed, then, that they have been in the main favoured with good health.

Further, and here we introduce a social aspect into the analysis, a singular feature which connects all these individuals is their tenancy of high profile positions within state, academic or corporate agencies. Occupying, as they do, the top strata of the employment scale, which attracts to it a slew of benefits extra to the significantly high salaries these positions command, they are comfortably placed should they ever find the spectre of ill-health casting a shadow across their lives. This ‘social’ lens, then helps to explain how their distorted perspective on illness may have been reinforced by their privileged social location. The protection of affluence provides an impenetrable buffer against physical or mental affliction.

And it is the second of these, the mental, which perhaps offers the greatest insight into the behaviour and attitudes of this group. The psychological element of this model is able to highlight the source of shared distortions in beliefs that manifest within this sector of the population. Significantly this group place an excessive value upon psychological explanations of illness. Perhaps this is an instinctive acknowledgement of the fact that they, themselves, suffer from psychologically deluded ideas about the sources of illness (for reasons not unconnected to their own bio and social circumstances). Many of them, some explicitly, some tacitly, derive their understanding of illness from what is termed ‘positive’ psychology (or the rather more respectable ‘cognitive behavioural’ theory). The ideas underpinning this minority field of the discipline is that it is not the circumstances of people’s lives which determine the outcomes for them but their ‘attitude of mind‘. More rational people consider this ‘wishful thinking’, or when applied to the dire circumstances of some people’s lives by an outside agent, abuse. Other psychological dysfunctions are also visible among this group, particularly that of the persecution complex which is evidenced in ‘knee-jerk’ responses to any legitimate criticism that those actually suffering from illness have the temerity to raise.

This has been a brief analysis of this afflicted group, but it has also been a demonstration of just how widely it is possible to apply the BPS model. I believe it has been put to a far more realistic use here than it has by the group in question, who stretch one or two ideas to breaking point in their attempt to legitimise their theories, with their notably unbalanced emphasis on the (out-dated) psychological at the expense of those accompanying elements of the model. Interestingly this analysis too has found more significance of the ‘psycho‘ aspect in revealing underlying attitudes and distorted beliefs surrounding an issue. Perhaps that ultimately is this model’s failing, in that under the aegis of a purported ‘scientific’ paradigm it is able to provide a platform for the legitimisation of any, or all,  biased attitudes.

Hopefully this small exercise will have enlightened people as to the uses to which the BPS model can be put. Anyone who wishes to give an apparent scientific gloss to their biased propositions need only to remember to quickly dispense with the ‘bio’ and the ‘social’ and focus excessively on the ‘psycho’ where, given its controversial history, psychology is certain to furnish them with something with which to underpin their claims.

As the examples become ever more extreme…

… Private Eye reports on a man shot with a .44 Magnum, which resulted in damage to various organs, a coma, followed by heart attacks, and strokes and lasting disability, including enduring post-traumatic stress disorder, being ‘found’  fit for work by Atos.

Further proof (if any were needed) that what is happening at Atos is not due to an occasional ‘inefficiency’ or a handful of incompetent assessors, but a systemic, inbuilt process designed to deliberately find almost anyone ‘fit’ for work.

Chomsky said something to the effect that it takes a real education to make people able to avoid what is in front of their eyes:

“[Y]ou don’t really have to work very hard to see these things. You have to work very hard not to see them. It takes a really good education to miss this. “

This seems to be particularly relevant to this training of Atos’ ‘Disability Analysts’. In light of the fact that messages have been more widely disseminated out of this process to those in parliament, the houses of Commons and Lords, some might view this as part of a propaganda campaign against the vulnerable. Others might view it less generously as brainwashing.

The ‘Psychologising’ of Illness and The Sanctification of Work

I’ve been away a little while (longer than I intended), partly because I’ve been working on an article for the International Green Socialist online magazine. It turned into a larger project than I intended, but I hope visitors here will give it a go because I think it exposes some deliberate processes that have been going on behind the scenes of the new ‘reforms’ of health related benefits, to the disadvantage of the sick and disabled in this country. Despite its length I still feel there is more to be said about this and I hope to be following it up with more in depth analyses in the near future.

Fill your boots (as my darling daughter would say) here:

Illness as ‘Deviance’, Work as Glittering Salvation and the ‘Psyching-up’ of the Medical Model: Strategies for Getting The Sick ‘Back To Work’.

(You might need more than one pair )