28th January 2013 changes

Since I'm due to be reassessed for ESA soon, I'm very worried about the changes from the above date, namely on the subject of being declared fit for work if I refuse treatment.

I'm currently in the Support Group due to depression and anxiety. My condition is treatment resistant and I've had every treatment offered to me. I saw a new psychiatrist a couple of years ago who suggested a course of therapy I had already undergone several times. I explained that the treatment hadn't worked before and that I was no longer able to attend therapy anyway, due to my anxiety and agoraphobia. The psychiatrist was very arrogant and wouldn't listen to my concerns and simply dismissed me as non-compliant. He would have then written to my GP, although I haven't seen the letter.

Will the DWP question my GP about whether I've refused treatment? Will they be able to find out and declare me fit for work even though I had valid reasons for refusing?

I'm sorry about the long post, but I'm panicking about this subject. I know the new guides haven't been posted yet but any clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Thanks so much for your speedy reply, Gordon.

Can I ask if you could give more detail on the circumstances where someone may be assumed to be receiving treatment, especially in mental health cases?

Thanks again

To the Top.

Gordon wrote: The new ESA regulations will include a change to Regulation 29 that will take into account "the claimant taking medication to manage the claimant’s condition where such medication has been prescribed for the claimant by a registered medical practitioner treating the claimant."

There has been some talk that this measure may violate the Human Rights Act. It may be contrary to the recognised right to refuse medical treatment. Examples might be both ones of mental health - suppose someone refuses to take lithium to control bi-polar disorder - or physical ones such as someone who refuses to take morphine for pain.

Does, effectively, imposing a financial penalty on someone (by reducing or denying benefit) count as a denial of their right to such a refusal?

Whatever the case it will take a long time before any judgements come through, whilst the clause will be in effect as from now (for most people).

This clause also involves the HCP/DM making a judgement as to how the claimant would be able to work if they were taking the prescribed medication. IMO that counts as a decision beyond their competence, especially if that judgement is made without mentioning it to the claimant. That problem, however, is not new.