To be really cross about the proposed cuts?

[Byjimminy]

And feel really effing sorry for those with genuine anxiety and depression - it is disabling!

Already seeing threads in MH with people despairing in anticipation of cuts. As if mental health services haven't already been decimated beyond recognition already. GP appointments as rare as hen's teeth, CAMHS and access to decent therapy is next to non-existent, the conservatiives slashed all the support workers and sure start centres and we've had the worst pandemic in decades (centuries?) - long covid is thing too! And now people are just self diagnosing/making up mental health issues? How the hell anyone believes anyone manages to claim PIP without a proper diagnosis is insanity itself.

I completely agree with this article: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/wes-streeting-overdiagnosis-mental-health-adhd-b2716618.html

I know there will be umpteen threads on this already, but maybe some others like me just want to let stuff out in frustration and have a fresh place to say it. To think this is a labour government making these decisions BEFORE putting the services in place to actually help and treat people is beyond comprehension.

Agsin its about how the person is impacted not the diagnosis.

A diagnosis is often an important piece of supporting evidence for a PIP application. It doesn't guarantee that you'll be successful but it is obviously harder to claim if you don't have a diagnosis.

People say this but from my experience you're more likely to get awarded if they're actually familiar with your diagnosis. I was asked at my assessment what one of mine was. She then decided it didn't cause me any issues. I received a diagnosis because it was causing me issues

Well yes but when you look st the criteria for PIP its very much about what you cant do or need help doing
An autism diagnosis for example is very broad and some people whilst they have challenges ,are very capable and idependent ,whilst others will need full assitance with everything 24/7.

But that does of course depend on your disgnosis and wether it prevents you from independenly caring for yourself or.it means you need assistsnce to do so.

Which is does and was explained. Didn't stop them deciding it causes me no problems though

Yes, I know this but to pretend there is no link between diagnosis and PIP is a bit misleading. You are much more likely to be taken seriously if you have a plethora of diagnoses than if you rely on personal testimony. It's the nature of the beast.

So if we use Autism as an example, I imagine it very rare for someone to get awarded PIP for Autism without a diagnosis. So the diagnosis is defacto a prerequisite for PIP and this is why the disparity between diagnosis rates at different centres and the controversy around diagnostic creep is important.

I didnt ssy there was no link though and obviusly the more evidece you have the more likely you are be successful.

Yes thst seems to happen regularly
Did you challenge it.?

Depressingly while we're all bickering over this, the real shocker is this:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/01/starmer-offered-big-us-tech-firms-tax-cuts-in-return-for-lower-trump-tariffs

Big US tech getting tax cuts. Make the fat cats fatter while we're fighting in the mud for scraps. I get the fear of tariffs but it's a weak strategy that won't pay off. We'll still be hit with them and the real money we need to fund our infrastructures and public services is eluding us. In the meantime we roll over like good little puppies. I truly despair.

I think the whole concept of disability is inherently quite subjective. Many of us (particularly as we age) have conditions that impact our lives and are difficult to manage but wouldn't necessarily be considered a disability until they reach an arbitrary tipping point. This is true for loads of things like being considered legally blind or deaf. ASD and ADHD for example are assessed using methods that would mean that there will always be people just below the threshold for diagnosis and considered non-disabled whilst another person just above the threshold is considered disabled. It's obviously a nonsense as realistically there is no such binary distinction exists between people like this.

Your argument about whether too many people can be considered disabled is an interesting one. Of for example, 51% of people have some kind of disability then what does this mean for society? Disability would become the norm. Would we have to consider that some conditions were a 'normal' part of the human condition and not a disability?

My oldest son has Diabetes thìs is arguably a disabillity as he has to take insulin up tp five times a day to stay alive and he has to be very careful about his diet to try and keep his blood sugars stable
However that doesnt mean he cant independently care for himself or travel independently so rightfully woulnt meet the criteria to clsim PIP.

And I think this is where things have become confusing.

Many people use the definition of disability as a condition which has significant impact on day to day living to equal disability which should be financially assisted/compensated for by the state.

Which is why the system has become a mess.

I disagree that being careful about what you eat and taking medication for an illness/condition, no matter how many times and for what reason makes a disability. If it doesn't affect your daily care and/or mobility and you can live and travel independently, In other words, not disabled by it, then it's not a disability.

Lots of people do those things for other medication and illnesses.

This is the problem we have now. Many things are considered disabilities when they really aren't.

Im.not saying he should get PIP for it but he,s entitled to ask for ressonsble adjustments under the disabillity act
For exsmple he wss disgnosed a few months brfore his GCSE,s and was allowed to bring his phone into the exam room as he had a CGM fitted he was slso allowed breaks durng his exams if needed to treat hypo,s , before he started college he saw the disabillity officer regsrding space being provided for so he can take his insulin in private.

There was a time when all that extra provision wasn't needed to be made a big deal of.

Yes, bring a glucose monitor or a device for that if necessary (a phone connected to the Internet where he could easily get answers during an exam is questionable but if nothing else would suffice then he can't be deprived of monitoring his levels); have a bit of extra time if he has to take a break for hypo (although it's always good to prepare for eventualities at home so that the 1 to 3 hours of exams can go without any problems but you can't always predict things); be allowed to go to the bathroom/his room or safe corner to take his meds.

These are simple things that shouldn't require a big deal made out of 'reasonable adjustments' and being given his own room (for example) to take insulin. They're common sense, basic individual human needs adjustments not a "disability" one. The same as if someone needs to go to the school nurse for example to take ibuprofen or injection for a fever or something. It's a simple 'go and come back' or go home if unwell.

It's all just unnecessary pandering that parents or adults should be able to handle on their own (because that is life). It becomes even more of an issue since it's not only one person such things have to be done for, it gets a bit out of hand trying to 'accommodate' everyone with their specific requirements.

It reminds me of schools where half the class has some type of adjustment that needs to be made. There's literally no space to make all the specific adjustments for all the children that need them. They can't magic it out of thin air to provide.

@haastrope
I largely agree. I think terminology matters and I view diabetes in a similar way I view hypo/hyper thyroidism etc. In extreme cases these conditions can be disabling but the vast majority of people can manage them successfully with the help of modern medicine and science.

It's important to remember the poor eyesight would have previously been considered a disability under current definitions but obviously technology and the invention of glasses/contact lenses has meant that we don't even recognise this as a significant issue now. In fact people are now expected to pay for their eye tests and glasses which would fly in the face of sentiment behind PIP which is that people shouldn't be disadvantaged by their disability. Importantly lots of people would be considered legally blind without corrective tools so the 'disability' hasn't disappeared. It's just become easier to treat.

Most people would agree that this is just how the cookie crumbles and that we can't expect the state to step in just because we happen to have inherited eyes that don't work as well as other people's. If you were to suggest that people take more personal responsibility for other disabilities though then you are accused of being hateful or non empathetic.

He wssent allowed his phone on him it had to be placed on a desk in front of him
Considering it very nearly kilked him and.he was in intensive care for 3 weeks i think a few minor adjustments waa fair enough
Anyway we can go round in.circles with this sccording to the disabillty act Diabetes when treated with medication or insulin is considered a disabillty
My originsl point was though that just becsuse you have a disabillty doesnt mean you are automatically entitled to benefits .

Tell me you know nothing about poor eyesight without telling me

It is a disability and for most of us glasses do nothing. On a good day I can read 3 lines corrected with my good eye. I can read 1.5 lines (about 2 letters at 6 metres) with my other eye corrected

It is significant enough of an issue that I've got a disabled persons bus pass and blue badge. I will never have enough vision to drive

Being unable to do everyday things like reading and crossing the road safely not helped by the way people park is disabling

I have objectively terrible eyesight. Myopia and extreme astigmatism.
I am not legally blind because it can be adequately corrected with glasses and specialist contact lenses. I still don't have perfect vision, especially at night. One hundred years ago I would meet the threshold for being legally blind as corrective devices wouldn't exist.

Obviously not all cases of poor eyesight can be corrected by glasses/contacts/surgery but the vast majority of them can be.

I don't think people are making a big deal out of reasonable adjustments at all.
I think people need the bit of legislation behind them when people can't be bothered to use common sense or be human, because it requires effort or impacts profits or they simply don't believe the accommodation is needed eg a phone being used for monitoring glucose.

Something like an exam board needs to have rules for administering exams and also to have a legitimate reason for altering those rules.

Cancer is considered a disability under the Equality Act 2010. So someone who had a cancerous mole removed and had no further treatment is considered disabled and protected under the act.

The cancer wouldn't even need to be melenoma but but would more likely be a Basal Cell Carcinoma that can usually be treated very successfully without any real threat to life. It's bonkers that this would be included under the definition of a disability.

They are protected against discrimination at work and society relating to the cancer they had which seems fair enough. Although the likelihood of discrimination seems pretty low.

It could possible be relevant to requesting reasonable adjustments too such as wearing a hat as an outdoor worker.

😃