Unfair On Welfare: Daily Telegraph Pinged By Press Council

Dx2013

Evidence?

As a former Commonwealth Medical Officer (now retired) whose main work from 1989 until 2006, when the then Howard Government abolished medical assessments for DSP,  my colleagues and I accepted that the Treating Doctor's Report (TDR) would usually favour the patient. That is not unremarkable. In my previous incarnation as a GP for 16 years, I understand that GPs (usually but not always; occasionally specialists) see themselves as their patients' advocate. There is nothing inherently wrong with this attitude.

As an example of misunderstanding by GPs are the distictions between, impairment, disability and handicap. The loss of a little finger in a manual worker is probably a minor impairment, but in a cancert violinist, it would be a considerable handicap. TDRs often included "disabilities" such as hypertension and/or diabetes II as "disabilities" but these if adequately investigated, treated and stable are NOT "disabilities".

Other misunderstandings arise becaus the GP is trying to help the patient. Again, an actual case  (and there were others like this), the GP provided a TDR where the patient clearly had a terminal illness, but stated that his patient was "likely to return to work", as a means of trying to bolster the patient's sense of well-being and confidence. This "kindness" means that CentreLink will reject the patient's claim fr DSP. At this point it is worth pointing out that ALWAYS, CentreLink always made the final decision with respect to eligibility for DSP (or not), NOT the CMO.

It might have changed since the then government (in 2006) stopped using doctors (CMO's) on the justification that:-

i) Using doctors to assess medical was too expensive. and...

ii) CMO's were captive to the "Stockholm Syndrome" and were "too soft" on DSP claimants.

Thanks Max. Par-for-the-course for the tele. Remember the Paxtons?

DX if you're not part of the 1% then you are exceedingly bloody stupid to rail against your own interests on their behalf.

If you are of the 1% then your behaviour on these pages is merely specious.

Specious or stupid, take yer pick.

Yes, being awarded a DSP is a very arduous and strict bureaucratic process, and a lot of people who desperately need it are turned away every year because they don't have enough 'points' of disability-ness. They survive, barely, with help from friends and family, and whatever community support is available.

For the 'lucky' few disabled enough to qualify for a DSP, they do receive more than NewStart. Even so, the DSP is no picnic, resourcing only a very frugal lifestyle. For such a paltry amount of money, and assuming they can somehow fool layer after layer of a process designed to weed them out, who in their right mind would run the risk of years in jail for welfare fraud? It makes no sense at all. You'd make more money for way less risk doing almost anything else....

People kicked off the DSP by mistake have been known to suicide, such is the existential suffering. You've just taken everything they have, dignity and all. I'd hate to see the suicide risk profile of people denied the DSP on technicalities.