For finding the term "registered disabled" annoying?

[BobbyBiscuits]

As background, I worked on behalf of the DWP for 15 years, and one project was developing the process/ forms etc for DLA to PIP transition. It was not a nice workplace but I really enjoyed speaking to the clients and getting their voices heard. (I was too junior for any decision making and simply interviewed clients in view to designing the forms etc)

After a MH breakdown, I found myself in the same position as my clients and now claim both PIP and ESA. I have MH which has now generated PH issues. My family are also on same/ blue badge etc.

For some reason recently this terminology has been annoying me...I hear a lot of people describing themselves as "registered disabled'. Why not just say 'disabled'?

This is a voluntary self reporting scheme that some councils offer. There is no such thing in any meaningful terms. Disability is a spectrum and how if affects each person is very different. I hate the benefit system and am not advocating it but get frustrated when people use this terminology as it's meaningless.

There is no register of disabled people, and it's really misleading. It can muddy the waters when people seek help.

I'm not blaming disabled people, but whoever started the terminology.

Any thoughts on this?

Ps sorry but my edit button has disappeared. It obviously should read disability not durability!

People who are far less disabled than me may well claim benefits etc and therefore be "registered".

My condition limits my mobility and health significantly but I am able to earn a very decent salary working from home and it would be morally wrong for me to claim benefits when I am, by any definition, wealthy

It frustrating when people think "registration" or " entitlement to benefits" is the gateway evidence for being entitled to legal protection because you are disabled

@Neriah Why are you saying no when I said 'You are disabled if your health condition affects you day to day life adversely.'
That's exactly the same as what you are saying?
As for qualify 'in law'. I don't know what that terminology means either. You just get benefits for it if you do the forms/ assessment if applicable.

Yanbu. I have autistic traits and incorrect terminology drives me up the wall. Same as when someone (usually MIL) says they have seen "the Dr in charge of the whole hospital" for a medical appointment when the system doesn't work like that.

But it’s not incorrect terminology for people like my DD who is officially REGISTERED blind (government and legal definition). Blind people are classified as disabled too.

I wanted to add that I fully understand that registered blind is a legit status. Not some weird puffed up language that does not help, and does not signify anything meaningful. It's hard enough to describe being disabled to docs/ dwp/ friends/ strangers etc without there being false titles attached to it.

The definition in law is clear. Whether you choose to claim benefits or earn a good salary are different issues.

And there is still no "register". Like you I earn a good salary, until I retire this year. OK pension. I get PIP because I'm entitled. It isn't a benefit, it's an entitlement. Morality has nothing to do with it.

But then i wouldn't describe myself as wealthy, so maybe that's the difference. But the legal definition is very important, not for benefits, but for the employment we both depend on. My last manager tried to "wipe" me because she thought people with disabilities would be better off not working. Yeah, maths isn't her strong point. That would be being a bitch. I'm still here... that legal definition is very handy.

@Soontobe60 I assume NHS keep records, to plan ahead. Or census, if it includes health info (I can't remember)

@Soontobe60

I do think there should be some way of recording the numbers of people with a ‘diagnosed’ disability.

The problem with that is it's conditions that are diagnosed. Not disability. One person with arthritis may not be disabled by it whereas someone else may be a wheelchair user. There are too manage variables to diagnose a disability

It's interesting as an aside, and bears some consideration as to the reasons (I bet there's a shed load of research if I looked) but the "registering" of blind people dates from 1851. But other disability? No. There's a "philanthropic " rationale in there that in 2024 we'd probably thump someone over!

Mine doesn’t have one for people over 25. I just looked.

I think we are essentially agreeing with each other.

It's the legal definition that matters not whether we do or don't claim a particular benefit or what organisations we "register" with

I'm not judging people who claim PIP, just explaining why the fact I don't doesn't make me any less disabled than someone who does

@Neriah Thanks for your further comments. I agree with most of what you say. As advice (I'm sure you know already, lol) If you are on PIP then when older you can migrate to attendance allowance. They usually don't even make you do an assessment. It's usually a similar amount or more. You just have to do the forms a lot of the time.

It’s not an ‘aside’ to my DD: blind people are disabled too. The extremely low incidence of registrable blind/severe sight impairments in children and young people means that they are quite often ‘forgotten’ and othered. As the parent of a child who is REGISTERED blind, I am satisfied to have that legal definition as there is so much ignorance about ‘blindness’. My DD, who is a teen, and has absolutely minimal functional vision in one eye, but multiple sight loss conditions that mean that she has permanently wobbly eyes, eyes that don’t communicate well with her brain and vice-versa, plus no peripheral vision, no depth perception, poor central vision, and no vision in dark or bright light, is regularly asked how many fingers people are holding up as there is an assumption that she is somehow ‘cheating’.

During covid we notified our GP that both our children had a learning disability and that my DH and I are classed as unpaid carers for them. Health wise it was significant for vaccinations and I think from 14 they can have an annual health check to try to pick up on any problems.

I do find it useful as a term to help describe their needs. They can't talk so they can't explain themselves. I don't really care whether other people use it or not!

The term comes from the initial disability legislation in Britain, the 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, that required Local Authorities to investigate and compile a register of disabilities and needs in their area. In those early years being on the register gave access to local authority services and adaptations. The term registered was generally used for those covered by the Act - but it Local Authorities are no longer required to maintain general registers

Noone is disputing that registered blind people are disabled.

Just pointing out that you can be disabled without being "registered" anywhere

(I may well likely end up registered blind myself in the future from my condition, many with it are, at present though disabled in many other ways )

@forcedfun fair enough, but there have been plenty of people here arguing the toss that disabled people are not ‘registered’ - and I’m like that really annoying kid in the class going pick me, pick me with my arm nearly touching the ceiling so I can get across the point on behalf of my VI person, if not others, that blind people are/may be ‘registered’. And that the government, the NHS and law refers to them in this way. (And then it’s really annoying to have posters here diminish the registering of blind people or imply that they are a subset of disabled people. No, they’re blind, they may be REGISTERED and they are disabled.

I agree, OP, in that I'm not sure that being registered disabled actually means anything. It implies there's a list somewhere that confers some gain or other to the disabled person, whereas I Don't believe that does happen.

I suspect its a lag over from when being registered disabled was a meaningful concept.

Being Registered Blind is different as it is legal concept which actually means something.

@Dandelones thank you! Your final paragraph! 😘

But the point I, and the op, are trying to make is that policies that only apply to those who are "registered disabled" are erroneous and problematic

For instance the charity I volunteer for had policies saying they would only give grants to the "registered disabled ". I have updated these now to reflect the Equality Act definition and make it clear we would accept quite a range of evidence

I sympathise with your daughter's plight, very much so, but you are missing the point of the thread.

@forcedfun no, I am most definitely not missing the point of the thread (and I always hate this as a classic MN attack - I can do reading, thanks, and my comprehension skills are okay, too. I have revisited the OP’s original post and they are referencing the fact that there is no ‘register’ of disabled people and ‘registered disabled’ does not exist as a concept. My argument here - and I aim not to be divisive as the parent of two significantly disabled children - is that blind people, as a subset of disabled people, quite often are REGISTERED blind. There is a register of blind people that is held at Moorfield’s Eye Hospital (this is, of course, voluntary). I have not got into the wider political debates or discussions about disability; I have merely and consistently referenced the point that blind people can be REGISTERED as blind and that this is a legal definition that is utilised by the government, the NHS and law. It is simply incorrect to say that it is incorrect to say that there is no such thing as ‘registered’ as disabled. Because there is.

@WhompingWillows

Can you not just accept we are discussing those with disabilities which don't include being registered blind?

There isn't though. There is registered blind which is a subset of disability.

But many disabled people don't appear on a register anywhere and the assumption that we do is harmful

We are protected by the Equality Act which does not have registration as a requirement. And organisations which misunderstand this need educating.

@sondot how about we can all exercise our right to freedom of speech and all talk about our personal experiences of disabilities? The irony of people getting pissed off because the whole premise of the thread was that there is no such thing as being registered disabled and me constantly sticking my hand up and reminding that, yes, there is, and then being told that you want to have a debate about disabilities that doesn’t include being blind….