The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

2,650 British people have died after being found ‘fit to work’ by benefit tests

Statistics released by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on Thursday revealed that nearly all the deaths (2,380) were people on Employment and Support Allowance - which the Work and Pensions Secretary claims is meant to be a 'short-term' benefit. The rest (270) were on Incapacity Benefit (IB) or Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA).

The Department for Work and Pensions battled for months not to release the numbers, with its chief minister Iain Duncan Smith at one point telling Parliament they did not exist.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/over-4000-people-have-died-soon-after-being-found-fit-to-work-by-the-dwps-benefit-tests-10474474.html
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-died-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures

:congrats: Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

This country is in mess.
This is absolutely insane.
About half of them were appealing the decision at the time of their death as well.

Can't wait to see Conservatives try to defend this. Especially the trying to cover up the figures.
Please see the other 2 threads on this topic.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 5
Avatar for Erzan
Erzan
13
Original post by Amber130500
This is absolutely insane.
You have to laugh or you would just cry. refugees fleeing from death are on every newspaper news channel and treated like undeserving pests. Nearly 3,000 British people die because of a benefit system and not a word.
Original post by Erzan
You have to laugh or you would just cry. refugees fleeing from death are on every newspaper news channel and treated like undeserving pests. Nearly 3,000 British people die because of a benefit system and not a word.




Since the figures were released yesterday this story has been ran by every major media source in Britain. Not a word? Bull****.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Erzan
You have to laugh or you would just cry. refugees fleeing from death are on every newspaper news channel and treated like undeserving pests. Nearly 3,000 British people die because of a benefit system and not a word.


Given that the story is all over the media right now, you're either a liar or a mong. Pick one.
(edited 8 years ago)
Any information on the causes of death? How many people would be statistically expected to die in that period, is 2650 much more than would normally be expected?
Reply 9
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
If rather see the causes of death before concluding the benefit system killed these people.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by KimKallstrom
Given that the story is all over the media right now, you're either a liar or a mong. Pick one.


DiddyDec
You are ****ing moron.

Since the figures were released yesterday this story has been ran by every major media source in Britain. Not a word? Bull****.


Nope, can't see anything at all on the BBC, Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph

Below the fold on the Independent

Only the Guardian foregrounds it
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Potally_Tissed
Any information on the causes of death? How many people would be statistically expected to die in that period, is 2650 much more than would normally be expected?


Aj12
If rather see the causes of death before concluding the benefit system killed these people.


This isn't the point. Everyone seems eager to deny that this could be the fault of the benefits system, but that's not the point being made. I can't see how any conclusive evidence could ever be brought for or against that.

The point being made is that people so ill they were two weeks from death were being found fit for work by the fit for work tests.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 12
Avatar for JFK1917
JFK1917
1
Because of the fear of having to work for a living. Keep up the good wok IDS.
Original post by scrotgrot
This isn't the point. Everyone seems eager to deny that this could be the fault of the benefits system, but that's not the point being made. I can't see how any conclusive evidence could ever be brought for or against that.

The point being made is that people so ill they were two weeks from death were being found fit for work by the fit for work tests.


That is why we need to know the cause of the deaths. Because if it was suicide then they were not two weeks from death.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by scrotgrot
This isn't the point. Everyone seems eager to deny that this could be the fault of the benefits system, but that's not the point being made. I can't see how any conclusive evidence could ever be brought for or against that.

The point being made is that people so ill they were two weeks from death were being found fit for work by the fit for work tests.


But you still need to know the cause of death because a number of people will die from reasons unrelated to any illness they had at the time of the fit for work test.
Original post by DiddyDec
That is why we need to know the cause of the deaths. Because if it was suicide then they were not two weeks from death.

Posted from TSR Mobile


If it was suicide then that only points to another problem with the system.

If it was the result of an existing health problem then this should have been picked up by the fit for work test, which is of course carried out by "medical professionals" "without back to work quotas" "taking into account available evidence from GPs".

By bringing in suicide, which by all accounts must represent only a few dozen of the 2,300 people, you are obfuscating the issue around the fit for work tests - and even then, suicide hardly proves there is nothing wrong with the benefits system, does it.

We do not need to know the cause of the deaths other than if we can show that a certain percentage of deaths among comparable age groups are generally unexpected.

In another thread Jammy Duel I believe pointed out that they could all have been run over by lorries or struck by lightning. Well, they could have been I suppose, if that's the lengths you need to go to to believe that the government isn't carrying out an indirect genocide on vulnerable people

Incidentally, as I have said repeatedly, the figure is actually 9,500, because 7,200 people died after being found fit for work-related activity and put in the WRAG under ESA.

The basis for my combining these figures is as follows: the award for the WRAG is now no higher than JSA and claimants are made to attend meetings, participate in CV clinics and the like, and can be mandated to complete workfare, that is, work but without any of the benefits like, you know, being paid. Obviously this is beyond any disabled or ill claimant, and because WRAG is conditional they are subject to sanctions. In my view therefore there is very little difference from the perspective of a claimant too ill to work between being "fit for work" and "fit for work-related activity" under the WRAG.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Potally_Tissed
But you still need to know the cause of death because a number of people will die from reasons unrelated to any illness they had at the time of the fit for work test.


This is unlikely, as people don't tend to develop serious illnesses from scratch and drop dead all within two weeks. The Tories may be bad but even they haven't managed to take us back to the 1300s yet.

Could it therefore be that the fit for work test isn't in fact based on medical evidence but rather a very cursory tick-box system and quotas for back to work decisions?

One notes the involvement of American insurer Unum Provident, described by a Californian judge as operating "disability denial factories", in consulting with successive governments on disability and unemployment benefit reform. Read some back issues of Private Eye on the subject.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 17
Avatar for leosam7
leosam7
The world is dying ... slowly.
Original post by scrotgrot
This is unlikely, as people don't tend to develop serious illnesses from scratch and drop dead all within two weeks. The Tories may be bad but even they haven't managed to take us back to the 1300s yet.

Could it therefore be that the fit for work test isn't in fact based on medical evidence but rather a very cursory tick-box system and quotas for back to work decisions?

One notes the involvement of American insurer Unum Provident, described by a Californian judge as operating "disability denial factories", in consulting with successive governments on disability and unemployment benefit reform. Read some back issues of Private Eye on the subject.


But in a few cases it happens. Plus accidental deaths, suicides etc. The 2650 figure doesn't say much by itself without knowing the "normal" figure for context.
Original post by Potally_Tissed
Any information on the causes of death? How many people would be statistically expected to die in that period, is 2650 much more than would normally be expected?


It's probably a little bit higher than what would be expected, in that time period you'd expect 51,000 of the 2,525,000 ESA claimants to die, but you also have to take into account the 6 week time frame which would drop it down to 5900 so for 2650 to be an expected number dying that would mean about 45% of ESA claimants would have to be declared fit for work, which is rather high when you consider the actual number is 7% (so a 6 fold increase)

However this is ignoring the characteristics of the population of ESA claimants/those declared fit for work after previously being on ESA. So that's going to bump up the risk a bit and you're probably looking at a 5 fold increase compared to what would be expected, which is still quite conclusive.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you