How is the refusal of meds or tests viewed?

I would be obliged for any thoughts about and/or experience/knowledge of how Decision Makers are likely to view applicants for ESA who have a disabling medical condition but do not take the medication offered for it? For instance, I have a medical condition that may be helped by taking steroids long-term, but immuno-suppression - and steroids in particular - usually give serious side effects (some of which are likely to cause irreparable damage) when taken long-term; so I have decided to put up with the medical condition and have declined the steroids...Have the DWP been known to take the view that people in my position should take the meds and cite this as grounds for refusal of benefit?

I also have another condition for which I have refused invasive investigative tests that are not without risk of causing infection/possibly permanent damage. The tests may or may not have helped my doctors better decide what medications to give me. And, once again, I have weighed up the pros and cons and decided to live with the condition rather than take the risk. I am also wondering how that kind of situation is generally viewed?

I know one can only really just apply for ESA, giving as much detail as possible, i.e. to explain one's actions and see what happens - and every case is unique - but, nevertheless, I would be grateful for any thoughts/experiences to help me feel better prepared for what might lie ahead.

Hi nofuss

I won't attempt to guess what view decision makers take. I can only say that I am not taking any medication for depression (as I never found it helpful) and this fact hasn't been used against me in recent assessments.

In the past it was briefly used against me by a decision maker in an appeal submission ('most unusual for a claimant with such problems not to be taking medication' ) but the tribunal didn't seem to take much notice of it.

If you have good reason for not taking any or a particular treatment, as you do, I think it is worth explaining this in a claim or appeal. Ultimately if you are not awarded ESA the decision maker will have to justify his reasons. I haven't read the case law below but it may be of interest to you.

www.disabilityalliance.org/pca.htm#Additional

Hope this helps

Derek

That's good to know Derek. I take antidepressants but I don't feel they help and I hate the side effects, but I take them just so I can 'prove' to ATOS I am ill.

Hi Derek

Many thanks for telling me of your experience and, as you say, I - just like you - do have good reason to refuse the steroids (and the tests). I too have been prescribed meds generally used for depression but in my case they were in a small dose for their pain-relieving properties - turned me into a zombie, never again for me! I will take a look at the case law reference that you give me too.

Kind regards,

Nofuss

mumsgirl wrote:

That's good to know Derek. I take antidepressants but I don't feel they help and I hate the side effects, but I take them just so I can 'prove' to ATOS I am ill.

I would be more inclined to send the tablets to the decision maker and tell him to take them!

Seriously though, it is an unfortunate position to be in. I would be very reluctant to take tablets just to satisfy a doctor or the DWP.

Sometimes you can fall between a rock and a hard place with either taking, or not taking medication for a medical condition.

I was once told by a tribunal that because of the high level of medication that I was taking, the condition would be controlled to a manageable level and therefore would not satisfy the conditions for an award of DLA. I told the tribunal that in point of fact, the side effects of the medication far from improving the medical condition, actually exacerbated it!

Needless to say it was included in the full statement of reasons for the decision but was completely unsubstantiated. Accordingly, amongst a number other errors of law, I successfully managed to have the decision set aside.