A quarter of Britons now say they are disabled.

[CliffH]

Check my reply and apology to @AJLang i have hopefully gone someway to minimise my mistake

Sorry yes: I think that's a great reply and hopefully I've now edited out the harshness from my comment.

 

[Kol]

Sorry yes: I think that's a great reply and hopefully I've now edited out the harshness from my comment.

Harshness noted, always difficult in replies as to who types quickest.

 

[CliffH]

Interesting discussion and wonder if officially things like Diabetes can be considered a “ disability” so that it can be included in any “ disability equality” legislation which may prevent discrimination.
If that is the case I am happy to accept the definition but I do think as others have said it very much depends on your individual situation.
I certainly do not consider that my diabetes ( have no associated complications or co morbidity) makes me disabled as with medication I am able to live a completely normal life so do not require any additional support.
So I look upon it in exactly the same way I as do taking any of my other medication such as Creon/ or Statins. I acknowledge some may see that as a very narrow definition but that is how I see it.

My understanding of the Equality Act is that no specific illness or condition counts as a disability per se, because the impact of each illness and condition varies so widely from person to person.

I think this is a more appropriate approach to take rather than assuming that everyone who has (for example) diabetes is disabled, or that (for example) an autistic person who struggles with sensory sensitivities isn't disabled, even though their disability is invisible and poorly understood.

 

[CliffH]

Harshness noted, always difficult in replies as to who types quickest!

... and I pride myself on my quick typing 🙄

 

[Wendal]

My understanding of the Equality Act is that no specific illness or condition counts as a disability per se, because the impact of each illness and condition varies so widely from person to person.

I think this is a more appropriate approach to take rather than assuming that everyone who has (for example) diabetes is disabled, or that (for example) an autistic person who struggles with sensory sensitivities isn't disabled, even though their disability is invisible and poorly understood.

Agree Cliff just think the law likes to be as be as “ objective” as possible by covering clearly defined groups as much as possible.

 

[AJLang]

Yes it was, and unnecessary, I really do offer my sincere apologies.

It was a very poor choice of words and mean't as 'Some of which may need a reality check' anyone with genuine needs should always be helped and supported.

Thank you. Your apology is appreciated. The fear I have of losing PIP under the new guidance is so much to deal with on top of having to deal with all of the effects of my illnesses.

 

[Inka]

My understanding of the Equality Act is that no specific illness or condition counts as a disability per se, because the impact of each illness and condition varies so widely from person to person.

I think this is a more appropriate approach to take rather than assuming that everyone who has (for example) diabetes is disabled, or that (for example) an autistic person who struggles with sensory sensitivities isn't disabled, even though their disability is invisible and poorly understood.

Yes, no named conditions but some do come under the Act ‘automatically’, Type 1 being one of them, as I understand it because of the significant effect and significant work needed to control it. I was told this some years ago. It also why employers are obliged to make reasonable adjustments for people with Type 1.

Nobody with Type 1 is compelled to think of themselves as disabled if they don’t wish to, but it is a significant condition and it is covered by the Equality Act.

 

[Inka]

As for the large numbers of disabled people in general, it seems to me that genuine claimants are being attacked and blamed because a small number of claimants are playing the system. They should sort those out, not pick on people who are genuine.

 

[CliffH]

As for the large numbers of disabled people in general, it seems to me that genuine claimants are being attacked and blamed because a small number of claimants are playing the system. They should sort those out, not pick on people who are genuine.

In terms of a cost:benefit analysis, I'd prefer the Government to focus on tax avoidance and evasion, rather than the "small number of people" who are allegedly claiming benefits to which they're not entitled.

 

[Inka]

In terms of a cost:benefit analysis, I'd prefer the Government to focus on tax avoidance and evasion, rather than the "small number of people" who are allegedly claiming benefits to which they're not entitled.

True. I was only responding to the thread topic not considering other areas. TBH, there are plenty of reforms and changes I’d make if I were in charge, but that’s a topic for a much longer, broader thread!

 

[CliffH]

True. I was only responding to the thread topic not considering other areas. TBH, there are plenty of reforms and changes I’d make if I were in charge, but that’s a topic for a much longer, broader thread!

"When I am King, you will be first against the wall"

 

[paultrose]

The fear I have of losing PIP under the new guidance is so much to deal with on top of having to deal with all of the effects of my illnesses.

Thats 2 of us then......the anxiety is not welcome at all

 

[Alan44]

Jeez, it would seem that I have had a disability for over 40 years and didn't know it.

"While insomnia itself is not typically considered a disability, chronic insomnia that persists for 12 months or longer and significantly impacts daily life may be considered a disability under the Equality Act 2010"

 

[CliffH]

Jeez, it would seem that I have had a disability for over 40 years and didn't know it.

"While insomnia itself is not typically considered a disability, chronic insomnia that persists for 12 months or longer and significantly impacts daily life may be considered a disability under the Equality Act 2010"

Yes, hopefully we're a more humane society than we were 40 years ago, in that we recognise a broader range of conditions that can be seriously disabling.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

For reference, would someone be able to post a definition of disability. I'm interested in how a type 1 diagnosis isn't considered a disability. Thanks

In my day-to-day life I don’t find my T1 particularly disabling, but legally I’m very glad T1 is defined as a disability. That’s why we are protected in the workplace etc, and cannot be discriminated against just because we have T1, and places like schools, universities, and employers have to make ‘reasonable adjustments’.

 

[Amity Island]

In my day-to-day life I don’t find my T1 particularly disabling, but legally I’m very glad T1 is defined as a disability. That’s why we are protected in the workplace etc, and cannot be discriminated against just because we have T1, and places like schools, universities, and employers have to make ‘reasonable adjustments’.

Hi Mike,

Agree with all that. My point (not clearly explained) was about how many with far less onerous conditions consider themselves disabled, when Type 1 diabetes is a substantial condition to live with and yet many Type 1's like you and me don't want to or feel they don't want to consider type 1 as a disablement.

In other words, it can be down to the individual in how they see a disability rather the other way round e.g now you have type 1 diabetes you are now disabled, if you get my drift.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

In other words, it can be down to the individual in how they see a disability rather the other way round e.g now you have type 1 diabetes you are now disabled, if you get my drift.

I think that’s very much the case, and most likely extends to many other conditions too, both mental health challenges like depression/anxiety and physiological things like cystic fibrosis, MS, polymyalgia etc.

Partly because long term conditions can affect people with differing severity either generally, or simply at differing times in life (or just on different days!)… but also perhaps in part because of the attitude of the people themselves.

I once heard a fascinating and very humbling presentation by a woman who had been profoundly disabled by a horse riding accident, and was experiencing almost total paralysis from the chest down. She explained the impact this had had on her life and her thinking, and what she had learned about herself, her mind, her character, and her body. Her determination and drive was extraordinary. She had even completed the London marathon in a set of mechanical legs which allowed her to take one faltering step after another with considerable effort.

A memorable phrase she offered from her experience, and one which I’ve ruminated on at times when disabled by grief over the past 6 years was:

Whether you think you can, or think you can’t, you are right.

 

[CliffH]

Hi Mike,

Agree with all that. My point (not clearly explained) was about how many with far less onerous conditions consider themselves disabled, when Type 1 diabetes is a substantial condition to live with and yet many Type 1's like you and me don't want to or feel they don't want to consider type 1 as a disablement.

In other words, it can be down to the individual in how they see a disability rather the other way round e.g now you have type 1 diabetes you are now disabled, if you get my drift.

Your perception may be that some people have "far less onerous conditions". However, whereas on paper those people's conditions may seem far less onerous, you don't know what complications may ensue for individuals. Similarly, someone who doesn't know much about Type 1 Diabetes may think, "It's just a question of injecting yourself with insulin a few times a day".

 

[Amity Island]

Your perception may be that some people have "far less onerous conditions".

No, not about perception, some people will have less onerous conditions and whilst they consider themselves disabled, Type 1's often don't.

 

[CliffH]

I still think that it's too much of a blanket term to say that one (potentially) disabling condition is automatically more "onerous" than another condition.

No, not about perception, some people will have less onerous conditions and whilst they consider themselves disabled, Type 1's often don't.