So they want to replace PIP/DLA money with vouchers?

[moneyinthebinthatsmrtim]

I don't understand it. It is really worrying me.

This payment helps pay for so many things. I doubt these vouchers would cover that, or give the freedom to shop or buy from where you want or need to.

I included DLA because it's really just the child's version of PIP. Eventually, my profoundly disabled child will be an adult and will have to be on PIP

Is there really any truth in this? I can't see any articles directly quoting Labour or Conservative. I might just be in such a worry that I have missed that bit

Apologies if there is another thread on this too. I am happy to get this one taken off if that's the case

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pip-disability-benefits-plan-rishi-government-critics-b2537209.html

It's not. The aftereffects of chemotherapy are often lifelong and serious.

I'm not disputing that, but many cancers don't need treatment once the cancer has been removed.

For the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, if you have ever been disabled, you retain the protected characteristic of disability.

The Equality Act 2010 is unrelated to PIP assessment criteria.

But many cancer patients have never been disabled through their cancer. Are you saying someone who has had a cancerous mole removed is as disabled as someone with Parkinson's? Because that's what you're writing.

Paragraph A9 of https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance/disability-equality-act-2010-guidance-on-matters-to-be-taken-into-account-in-determining-questions-relating-to-the-definition-of-disability-html

Paragraph six part one of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/1: "Cancer, HIV infection and multiple sclerosis are each a disability."

Where have you read that? I had cancer and chemotherapy left me with heart and thyroid problems which I am on medication for life for, but I certainly wouldn't class myself as disabled because I'm not.

HAS not had.

Read C12 of https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance/disability-equality-act-2010-guidance-on-matters-to-be-taken-into-account-in-determining-questions-relating-to-the-definition-of-disability-html

Read C12 of https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance/disability-equality-act-2010-guidance-on-matters-to-be-taken-into-account-in-determining-questions-relating-to-the-definition-of-disability-html

You can think of yourself however you like, but the law doesn't care about how you feel. The law cares about your material circumstances.

The cancer stuff has always looked to me as a left over from when cancer was a death sentence. And it seems that rules haven’t caught up with the advance in treatments and the fact people live well after cancer.

Now I fully agree that when you are suffering from life long side effects from the treatment/chemo, then the disability side should be there. Like for any illnesses really.

But my dad has Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He will never recover from that.
BUT he also had the nodule out, it was caught very early on and that was it. No treatment afterwards, no symptoms, nothing. At his age, he is now much more likely to die of any other causes than cancer.
So yes, he has cancer. But saying he is disabled doesn’t sound right either. Even on working rights pov (if he was still working)

Section six para four makes it crystal clear that anyone who has ever been disabled, even if they later recovered, retains most disability protections under EqA2010. Not just cancer patients.

Most forms of cancer are serious business, with most patients needing prolonged treatment with risk of relapse. Even a simple early lumpectomy demands more frequent mammograms for a while afterwards, just in case the surgeon missed a bit. A small proportion of cancer patients getting a level of legal protection that they perhaps don't need is a very small price to pay for automatically protecting the cancer patients who do need it, from diagnosis onwards.

But they do not necessarily qualify for PIP.
I think that’s what @Whooper is referring to and why reassessment is necessary.

My brother had non Hodgkin at 21. He’s now 59.
No lifelong disabilities either.

Thank you

Maybe the issue here is around the word disabled.

What does disabled means in terms of work protection (and tbh why is it that cancer patients automatically get protection when people with other just as serious debilitating/relapsing/needing follow ups illnesses don’t)
vs
What does disabled means in terms of PIP
vs
How the person feels - many people will identify as chronically ill and restricted but not as disabled. There is a lot of negative connotations associated with being disabled (incl the ‘good disabled person’) that you don’t have around being (chronically) ill

The language needs to be "an individual has a condition that disables" the condition is the problem not the individual.

@DullFanFiction 💯 In different legal contexts the word "disabled" has different meanings.

• You don't stop being protected under EqA2010 (apart from two specific protections you lose, one of which is related to housing IIRC) just because you aren't disabled any more.
• Your PIP claim is based on needs, but it should surely be obvious that some people aren't ever going to get better and so shouldn't be subjected to mandatory review.
• The law doesn't care about whether you think of yourself as disabled or not and I recommend that people who meet the EqA definition of disabled "hold their noses" and use EqA to help themselves even if they "don't feel" disabled. Likewise for PIP claims, if you are eligible, claim.

There's been a lot of debate even amongst disabled people as to whether we are "people with disabilities" or "disabled people". It's by no means settled and I recommend for your own quietness of life not to venture into that debate.

Who are you to dictate to others how they view themselves or what they can or cannot debate?

🤔agree
or am I missing the point of free speech and democracy.

You've mistaken my advice not to rush in to a toxic debate for me telling you how to describe yourself.

The language needs to be "an individual has a condition that disables"

That looks an awful lot like you telling disabled people how we should refer to ourselves and be referred to as. 🤔

I have no problem referring to myself as being disabled. Thanks all the same.

That's wonderful for you. But for the purposes of benefit claims it's important to know if a condition is in and of itself disabling (so needs a lifelong claim) or if the condition causes a temporary disability or if a condition is not disabling. It's, to my mind, an important distinction to make for the language of benefits.

But it's sometimes impossible to know whether a condition will improve. I was told in 2012 I should grow out of being too sensitive to noise...I've still got the same issue

There are many people who would argue that “disabled person” and “person with a condition that disables” means the same thing. But many have a preference for the former wording rather than the latter. It’s not universal though.

There’s the same debate among neurodivergent people - there’s no single consensus on the “correct” wording. But some people feel very strongly about this and object to the non-preferred wording being used.

I think this is a subject which is best left to each individual to decide which phraseology they prefer. It tends to get quite heated and there’s no single “right” wording.