Can payment be made conditional on treatment?

papasmurf wrote:

Marshal_534 wrote:

Is it legal for payment to be made contingent on undertaking a specific treatment?

If you mean could a drug addict be asked to get counselling and a rehabilitation course as a condition of getting benefits then I am pretty certain that is legal.
I can't think of any other instance where such a policy would be legal.

Although I digress, I seem to recall from my time on the Combined Allied Services Anti-Vice Bureau (CASAB) that under the now repealed Naval Discipline Act 1957 a sailor (below the rate of Petty Officer) could be charged and lose pay if they caught Venereal Disease and failed to get treatment for said disease.

For some reason it did not apply to the Army under the Army Act 1955 or the Royal Air Force under Queens Regulations - presumably they were more willing to visit the 'pox doctor' on their own valition if they 'caught a dose!'

Happy days!!

Pete

The patient's right to consent to or refuse medical treatment is protected by human rights law

Dave wrote:

Marshal_534 wrote:

Is it legal for payment to be made contingent on undertaking a specific treatment?

Similarly, is it legal to make payment contingent on discussing a specific treatment with a GP?

If it is not, what should be quoted by way of a response.

Best Regards,

M.

why would anyone not want treatment? is there a risk the treatment carries that could in fact make someone worse ?

I recently came off anti tnf treatment for my advanced ankylosing spondylitis and crohns disease due to the serious side effects of bad daily migraines and cluster headaches.
While I was on the treatment,my Rheumatology nurse told me to regularly check my lymph glands and testicles for lumps as anti tnf treatment carries a small but raised risk of cancer/leukaemia and a higher risk of serious infections..The treatment was a self administered fortnightly injection.
I have been offered a different anti tnf drug but have declined because its an intraveinous drip carried out every six weeks.
If I had the drip and went down with a serious infection or side effect I could be up a crappy creek without a paddle!
Anti TNF is a brilliant treatment for early stage AS and can reduce the progression and severeness of the disease.
However in my case,I feel that it`s a case of shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted!Anti tnf is a relatively new treatment and wasn`t available in the 80s when I was fist diagnosed (6 years after the first symptoms in 1978 when I was 20)

johnboy123 wrote:

The patient's right to consent to or refuse medical treatment is protected by human rights law

not true in the UK you can be sectioned and held in hospital and a new law came out called
Compulsory treatment orders



also below is a case where a woman was forced to have cancer treatment



www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/77...to-have-surgery.html

In both cases the patient/s are deemed not mentally capable of making a decision for themselves.
I think the original question was regarding the legality of benefits being withdrawn on a refusal of medical treatment for whatever reason.

Dave wrote:

johnboy123 wrote:

The patient's right to consent to or refuse medical treatment is protected by human rights law

not true in the UK you can be sectioned and held in hospital and a new law came out called
Compulsory treatment orders

also below is a case where a woman was forced to have cancer treatment



www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/77...to-have-surgery.html

The case you refer to only applies specifically to this woman, based on a court order. It did not create a precedent that all people can be forced to undergo treatment they do not wish to have.

For a patient to be sectioned see Mental Health Act

As far as Social Security Law is concerned, for example a person who has severe arthritis of a joint, but refuses to have a operation to replace the joint, cannot have sanctions taken against them by the DWP.

The right to refuse medical treatment is well established in medicine and in law. The legal tradition of the right to be left alone has deep roots. When cases arose asserting that a patient has a right to be free of unwanted medical intervention, the right was readily recognized and clearly affirmed. These legal cases can be categorized into four classifications: the patient with decision-making capacity, the patient without capacity but who had earlier expressed treatment preferences for end-of-life care either verbally or in a written advance directive document, the patient without capacity who had made no prior expression of treatment preferences, and the patient who never had the capacity to make treatment decisions.

In cases of patients with intact decision-making capacity, courts have ruled that such patients have the right to refuse medical interventions even when those interventions are life-sustaining. In Satz v Perlmutter, a competent ventilator-dependent patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis wanted his ventilator discontinued and was allowed by the court to direct physicians to remove the ventilator.

The exception to this will under new planned legislation to withdraw benefits from drug addicts who refuse to have treatment.

Pat ( former Registered Mental Nurse)

Jim (retired Disability & Welfare Rights Adviser)