I don't think disability is allowed anymore. We all know tolerance of the disabled/the sick is declining. But I think institutionally organisations such as the DWP even acknowledge the reality of such conditions anymore. It all started with Labour - or was it the Tories appropriating their policies in the wake of the election (while blaming labour for creating the problem their policy was set up to 'solve')? The introduction of the 'Fit Note' to replace the traditional sick note. Now the doctor is supposed to say not what ails the patient but what he can do.
Unfortunately in real life what a person can do is not a million miles from what he can't. I also find this revisionism rather iniquitous: I would go so far as to presume that the disabled (if I may be permitted to generalise) take ownership of their conditions. That is, a person's disabilities are not to be denied or something one should be ashamed of; they form part of who they are.
I see this now with The Psychologist. She happily performs her neurodiverse diagnostic test (or whatever the hell it's supposed to be) but when pressed about what the outcome - the actual result - means I get nothing. I'm told 'it's for me to decide what to do with my life' (?). It's not for me to claim on the sick, it's not for me to seemingly acknowledge any condition that may inhibit my ability to work. In fact she goes on to tell me that I can of course work; this may be true, but it ignored the whole picture.
There in is the problem: this Orwellian - ubermensch - approach ignores the totality of a person and their conditions, good and bad. No good can come from this. What good is it for a person in a wheelchair that could work at a desk in an office if that job offers no wheelchair access to the venue? What good does her fit note do for such a person? We must spread the message there is no shame in disability, and if a person cannot work in the conventional sense then it is the mark of a compassionate society that we care for them
Unfortunately in real life what a person can do is not a million miles from what he can't. I also find this revisionism rather iniquitous: I would go so far as to presume that the disabled (if I may be permitted to generalise) take ownership of their conditions. That is, a person's disabilities are not to be denied or something one should be ashamed of; they form part of who they are.
I see this now with The Psychologist. She happily performs her neurodiverse diagnostic test (or whatever the hell it's supposed to be) but when pressed about what the outcome - the actual result - means I get nothing. I'm told 'it's for me to decide what to do with my life' (?). It's not for me to claim on the sick, it's not for me to seemingly acknowledge any condition that may inhibit my ability to work. In fact she goes on to tell me that I can of course work; this may be true, but it ignored the whole picture.
There in is the problem: this Orwellian - ubermensch - approach ignores the totality of a person and their conditions, good and bad. No good can come from this. What good is it for a person in a wheelchair that could work at a desk in an office if that job offers no wheelchair access to the venue? What good does her fit note do for such a person? We must spread the message there is no shame in disability, and if a person cannot work in the conventional sense then it is the mark of a compassionate society that we care for them
