The British Government attempt at Redefining Disability

The United Kingdom has signed AND ratified The UN Convention on the Rights of people with disabilities which states that;

“Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission Guidance states that the convention is based on the Social Model of disability. The social model of disability sees the issue of "disability" as a socially created problem and a matter of the full integration of individuals into society, as opposed to the Medical Model which sees disability as  a problem of the person, directly caused by disease, trauma, or other health condition which therefore requires sustained medical care provided in the form of individual treatment by professionals.

However the governing Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition seems intent on denying that either of the above models apply. Perhaps as a reaction to the current economic situation, or as a matter of Tory Party ideology, they are applying what amounts to a purely Economic Model of disability;

“The economic model defines disability by a person’s inability to participate in work. It also assesses the degree to which impairment affects an individual’s productivity and the economic consequences for the individual, employer and the state. Such consequences include loss of earnings for and payment for assistance by the individual; lower profit margins for the employer; and state welfare payments. This model is directly related to the charity/tragedy model.”  - Source Wikipoedia.

The Coalition government has, in order to reduce the welfare benefits bill, introduced a new method of assessment and a new benefit to replace Incapacity Benefit and Disability Living allowance. The new benefits are at a lower rate than the above benefits and are assessed using a ‘Work Capability Assessment’. This method of assessment has been discredited by The British Medical Association, who have called for it to be scrapped and replaced with something more fit for the purpose.

That the Coalition government is using the economic model of disability is evident in the criteria used in the WCA, where claimants are found ‘fit for work’ and in the public  statements of its officials. Claimants have been portrayed in the media as ‘Lazy Scroungers’ and The Chief Operating Officer of the Department of Work and Pensions (Terry Morgan) made  the following statement to a public meeting of his civil service colleagues ;

“One of the things that distresses me greatly is when I see these headlines in newspapers when people have pretended to be disabled in order to get money out of the system.

“If I had my way I would put their photograph on every lamp-post in the street where they live because it is a very distressing thing for genuinely disabled people to see the reputation of disabled people damaged in the way that is by those people. We have got to do something about it constructively.”

The above statements make it distressingly clear that the DWP define a person who is ‘fit for work’ as not disabled, and a person who has been awarded benefit under the WCA as disabled, thus implementing the economic model.

Even more distressing to persons who have rights under the UN Convention is that this official advocates actions toward persons with disabilities that contravene article 15 and 16 of the UN Convention;

“Article 15 Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

'No one must be tortured or subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.Degrading treatment means treatment that is grossly humiliating and undignified.'

Article 16 Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse

'Governments must do everything they can to: protect disabled people from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse at home and in the community'”

As of the date of writing the WCA is being considered for judicial review by a judge of the High Court, on the grounds that it discriminates against people with mental health problems. The official figures for fraudulent claiming of these benefit has been put at  0.5% . The number of disabled people previously classed as unfit for work, who are being re-classified as ‘fit for work’ and denied ‘Employment Support Allowance’ continues to rise, as does the number of successful appeals, and sadly also the number of people who have died where removal of these benefits is seen as a contributing cause.

=================================================

Update : Since this article was written a more detailed examination of the issues involved, the models used and their origins has been produced by Debbie jolly : A Tale of Two Models on DPAC’s website