Disability is not an illness

dbnavan

Sorry but screw Political Correctness, i'd prefer to be labeled disabled then ill. I amnt sick, I am disabled.


From Unison.ie

Mr Brennan pledged to increase the number of checks to prevent fraudulent claims for the jobseekers allowance and disability benefit (which is to be renamed ’illness benefit’).

Victor

People with disabilities get Disability Allowance (DA), pretty much as a right (loops must be jumped through).

Ill people who might be out of work for a few days/weeks/months/years, currently receive Disability Benefit, so perhaps "illness benefit" is more appropriate.

snorlax

iv just added a section on disability allowance under the entitlment sticky. i probably should have added it first time around. if either of you have any information on specifc entitlements/ statutory benefits that haven't been mentioned it would be really useful if you could stick it under the sticky above as it could be really handy for people reading this forum.

dbnavan

Victor wrote:

People with disabilities get Disability Allowance (DA), pretty much as a right (loops must be jumped through).

Ill people who might be out of work for a few days/weeks/months/years, currently receive Disability Benefit, so perhaps "illness benefit" is more appropriate.

Victor you are correct on this call, just read more into it and your right. ASAIK Disability Allowence is remaining as is.

snorlax

"Disability in relation to a person, means a substantial restriction in the capacity of a person to carry on a profession, business or occupation in the State or to participate in social or cultural life in the State by reason of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment" (Disability Bill, 2004).

Attitudes of a society are often reflected in the social policy it bestows on it's people. i think this definition is significant improvement on some of the ones on the past as regards disability and how its defined.

dbnavan

snorlax wrote:

"Disability in relation to a person, means a substantial restriction in the capacity of a person to carry on a profession, business or occupation in the State or to participate in social or cultural life in the State by reason of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment" (Disability Bill, 2004).

Attitudes of a society are often reflected in the social policy it bestows on it's people. i think this definition is significant improvement on some of the ones on the past as regards disability and how its defined.

Maybe now I am nit picking but I have no problem carrying on my profession (PC repair, network installation, programmer), my business(Work for my self), Occupation(as stated)

I have absolutly no Mental or intellectual impairment, and yes even though I have a mild physical disability it does not impact my social or cultural life

FranknFurter

Its yet another case of the old chesnut "Medical Model Vs Social Model" imho.
(The notable aspect of the latter being the idea that "Access to society, culture and infrastructure is the disabling element, not the disability).
Which is and always has been the ideal I myself subscribe to and have always taught.

This was being heavilly debated a decade ago when I myself was part of the whole "equality movement" thing that was going on in dublin, especially in the area of "Arts & Disability".
Its rather disapointing that its still such an issue.

Personally I do not equate disability as illness, and I think with this current generation, opinions have definitely changed somwhat.
There is still a lot of improvment needed most especially in the "service provision" sector.

Yes, workers who are working in the "disability sector" are trained in both and told that the "social model is so much more important",....which is great, however I myself have found that a lot, (and I apologise to any OT's etc who dont feel this way), just pay lip service to the whole idea of seperating the person from the disability, because it the P.C. thing to do.

I do think however that, slow as it is, it is definitely changing for the better.
I remember a time when if I were being seen by a (usually medical or even quite often occupational therapist based) consultant I would be introduced (usually by said consultant to his gaggle of trainees), as "this is barry, hes a spina-bifida"........ it always made me angry and I always expressed said anger and insisted said trainees be sent out of the room afterwards as I refused to play any part in the continuing of such "teaching". But back then (only talking 10-15 years ago btw), it seemed commonplace. These days if such a thing happened I know I have legal avenues available to make my point more strongly. That in itself is a definite improvment directly related to the "social models" implementation.

Hopefully, if "disability benefit" is renamed "illness benefit" there WILL be active repercussions taken.
(As it is, I do not particularly like the term "benefit" but at least its uniform).

b

snorlax

training for Occupational therapy has come along way, even in the last few years it has changed alot. Unfortunetly not all OTs are as up to date on current frames of practice eg the more client centred ethos of Rogers (humanistic psychology) and that of Keilhofner (MOHO, and the Candian Model of Human Occupation-COPM being the assessment tool). Also some OTs that have been qualified for a good few years often have aquired set ways of doing things and don't see it fit to open a book to educate themselves and their practice better in a way that is more holistic to the client and is based more around offering them priorities/ choices as regards their treatment and not just simply perscribing AT equipment irrespective of clients wishes, or insisting on teaching them dressing practice when they have no intention of doing it themselves once out of rehab and would rather get a PA to do it for them and thus redirect their energies towards leisure activities or things that are more important to them.
I can't really speak for all OTs as i still am only a student but i can tell you that the way we are taught and what we are taught is constantly evolving as is our practice to better suit the needs of our clients. However there are always going to be people who are good and bad at their jobs, and aren't motivated to progress their research around clinical reasoning and suitable interventions and approaches .Probably part of the reason they aren't motivated is the glass ceiling on career advancement and salaries which don't really motivate or encourage people to read more up on their subject as they are likely to be paid the same as a bad OT who doesn't bother keeping up to date with research/ evaluating their practice. Also chronic staff shotages in certain area doesn't leave much time for development of practice.

FranknFurter

As I said snorlax, I didnt mean any offence to any OT's who understand and practice in a real and un-pushy manner, practicing or training.
Im just speaking from an on-going 28 years of working alongside and being the "client"
And some fail to remember when practicing that *without* the "client" there is no job.

There are HUGE shortfalls in coverage, which of course means that further training and development is often not practical.

I have to say snorlax, I did expect that you would be the first to post after mine and I wanna say I am VERY happy that a person with your attitude and views is training in the area, maybe one day you will be MY OT! :P (poor snorlax)

b

Victor

Well at least the word "invalid" is losing currency.

FranknFurter wrote:

(As it is, I do not particularly like the term "benefit" but at least its uniform).

The department use the word "benefit" for all payments that are derived from the PRSI scheme. So you have Unemployment Benefit, Treatment Benefit, etc.

FranknFurter

Victor wrote:

Well at least the word "invalid" is losing currency.

The department use the word "benefit" for all payments that are derived from the PRSI scheme. So you have Unemployment Benefit, Treatment Benefit, etc.

Yep Victor,
That "invalid" word, albiet just a word, really used to get on my nerves. :rolleyes:
Its still around, but is being used less and less thank the gods!

As for "benefit", yeah, albiet (imho) an incorrect term, at least its broad-spectrum, covering all the social welfare areas.

I find it interesting tho' how ya often still see "Invalid Parking" and & "Invalid Toilet" signs around the country and can rarely keep a straight face when raising the subject with whoever owns the place (so I usually contact them thru email or the site (in my sig).

To me, and "invalid toilet" is one that either isnt a toilet, (a fridge maybe?), or simply dosent work or exist. lol

<Invalid End Of Post>

now, I would like to recite the bible, backwards, in french, now!..............


b