You are quite right that our print media poison people’s understanding of virtually every issue. Even when they do not print outright lies they horribly distort the facts. Those with mental health issues have always suffered worse discrimination compared to those with physical disability. We naturally form many opinions based on visual perceptions of what we can see and the media easily tap into that bias.

We need to maintain a welfare system that humanely supports those such as yourself. So on all those points I am in full agreement with you. However, what I struggle to understand is why in 25 years those who are assessed as unfit to work has trebled? We have never had a healthier society and this is reflected in life expectancy rising. Yet, in this period of improving health we have this huge increase in those unfit for work. Better diagnosis seems an unlikely explanation for the tripling.

In order to deal with cases like this, it may be better to aim for a guaranteed minumum income rather than give arbitrary powers to officials: http://blog.iea.org.uk/?p=4310 (Hayek favoured a negative income tax)

Also means that people working freelance or occasionally throughout the year don’t have their benefits withdrawn at a high rate. Expensive, but fair.

“I’d be getting sacked from menial labour that my active mind could not handle…”

Aye, best leave it to the drones, eh?

@1 – “However, what I struggle to understand is why in 25 years those who are assessed as unfit to work has trebled?”

For the same reason, I suspect, that:

“… more than a fifth of school-age students in England have been identified as having some form of special educational needs (SEN)”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11287193

Because:

“Since the diagnostic criteria for things like ADD and Autism are so broad, and there are monetary incentives in the way of additional funding for students with disabilities, and parents would rather hear their child has a disability than that they might somehow be at fault for poor discipline, everyone at the diagnosis level benefits.”

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/09/chemists-special-education-teachers.html

Whilst:

“Almost half of Americans took at least one prescription drug per month in 2008, an increase of 10 percent over the past decade, a U.S. study found.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-02/prescription-drug-use-rose-to-include-half-of-americans-in-2008-u-s-says.html

I do agree that “those with mental health issues have always suffered… discrimination”, though I wouldn’t make a competition out of it.

I’d also suggest that there are a whole load of people who are, quite frankly, taking the piss.

However, what I struggle to understand is why in 25 years those who are assessed as unfit to work has trebled?

Well, it might have something to do with all the other social changes in the last 25 years – specifically that employment is no longer secure, mortgaged housing is no longer secure or initally accessible, rented accommodation is no longer secure (tenants can be legally evicted for no reason), full employment no longer exists… And yes, diagnosis has come on by leaps and bounds in the last 25 years – but much more significant, the level of stress required to simply live in this society has gone through the roof, and very many people can’t cope with that, their inability to cope manifesting itself in a variety of mental and physical conditions – permanently elevated levels of cortisol and adrenaline are toxic in themselves.

If you want to fix the problems of those people who can’t cope with modern society, fix modern society. What’s happening at the moment will only make matters worse. Still, at least those people who tut about the increased number of people diagnosed with disabilities now can rejoice in the increase in the annual suicide rate – although no doubt they’ll still tut about the lengths to which some people will go to avoid working.

@4 do remind me what all this terrible stress “required to simply live” has done to longevity over the past 20 years

@4

Indeed & couldn’t have put it better myself… wonder what happened 25 years ago-ish to screw up so many lives??

Since the diagnostic criteria for things like ADD and Autism are so broad

I’m not sure I would place any trust whatsoever in a report which talks about a diagnosis that hasn’t existed since DSM-IV was published. It’s also worth noting that the diagnostic criteria really aren’t that broad – they’re no more broad than those a number of physical syndromes, in clinical hands. (Of course, someone who hasn’t read DSM-IV to discover that ADD no longer exists as a diagnosis is unlikely to have cracked it open to read the diagnostic criteria either.)

And frankly, to talk about parents preferring to be told that their child is disabled than that they have a disciplinary problem ignores both the fact that parent-child interactions are studied as part of the diagnosis to rule out the possibility of a disciplinary problem, and the psychology of parenthood – as a parent, would you rather be told that your child’s behaviour would improve by leaps and bounds if you took a few simple steps in a consistent way, or that your child had a condition which would never go away, would always get in their way, and would also let them in for a lifetime of idiots telling them that their condition doesn’t exist and they’re just morally deficient?

I’m not sure what’s worse – the original authors of reports like this talking out of their arse, or the human centipede of willing morons behind them…

cjcjc, means without ancillary information are meaningless. What’s the variance of life expectancy, and how has it changed?

so are statements such as “the level of stress required to simply live in this society has gone through the roof”

Oh, and now I’ve read where you pulled that quote from – it’s an anonymous anecdote, selected in a highly self-serving manner. Its evidentiary value is precisely zero. Bad J. Bad.

I doubt that under the current system of ESA’s and “back to work interviews” I would have succeeded to anything like the level I have now……..I am a freelance hack because the only dealings I have with editors is proposing articles and submitting copy

The implication here is that you have because of the relatively soft regulatory regime in place when you were suffering your mental illness you are now no longer a burden on the state and are self sufficient.

Is that correct?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/stress/workrelatedstress.pdf

The document demonstrates that work-related stress increased sharply between 1990 and 2003. Since stress doesn’t manifest in obvious ways, and since individual responses to stress vary considerably, it’s reasonable to assume that the growth in reported figures corresponds to a general increase in work-related stress levels.

Your turn, cjcjc.

do remind me what all this terrible stress “required to simply live” has done to longevity over the past 20 years

Of course, there is only one variable (stress) in play here, isn’t there? It’s not like there’s any obvious confounds, such as new treatments or improved screening programmes… Sure, we can totally reduce a complex psychological question down to a single simple proxy metric. Especially when that single simple proxy metric has a long lag time…

@10 – an anecdote, yes, from someone who “work[s] with people with disabilities (currently with adults, but in the past with children in schools as a behavior consultant)”.

The author of the ‘report’ also states: “psychologists… have moved on to Autism as the general catch-all for why certain children struggle in school.” He or she refers to ADD historically, though the more modern definitions / variants are still relevant.

Whereas your source was… what, exactly?

I am not sufficiently expert to comment on the specific diagnostic criteria (for, say, autism), but I consider it more likely than not that they are indeed “broad” if the incidence of such afflictions is as high as 5 per 1000 in the US…

In fact, Wiki notes that the incidence of autism has more than quintupled in the US in ten years, whilst:

“A 2007 study that modeled autism incidence found that **broadened diagnostic criteria,** diagnosis at a younger age, and improved efficiency of case ascertainment, can produce an increase in the frequency of autism ranging up to 29-fold.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism#Changes_with_time

I’ll leave you to your centipede.

I have heard it said that depression is the new back pain?

Medics have certainly questioned the prevalence of certain mental health conditions, for example, some argue that depression is over diagnosed;
http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7615/328.full

The counter argument to the BMJ article is here;
http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7615/329.full

The idea of the ‘sick society’ is not new but by most objective measures I think I’m right in saying that the majority of us are better off than any time in history (recent downturn notwithstanding) – at least in material terms, and life expectancy?

I think the problem, as Richard W alludes to [1] is the mood that arises once we equate financial costs with clinical uncertainty.

I’m sure most of us are quite happy for the scientists, or researchers to employ their usual methods to explore such questions, but once in the hands of politicians with an agenda then we move into an entirely different sort of ball game?

@10 – an anecdote, yes, from someone who “work[s] with people with disabilities (currently with adults, but in the past with children in schools as a behavior consultant)”.

How do you know? Because he said so? Hmm… about the only way you could demonstrate yourself to be any more gullible would be to quote Wikipedia as evide- oh. Never mind.

I am “self-reporting” slightly increased stress levels as well!

Just as a random question (because I don’t know what the welfare cuts will be yet, I seem to be uniquely unable to support them, oppose them or shrug them off), why is it assumed doctors know best about what is best for people with mental illness? Even the same diagnosis can have complex and different, often undiscernable, causes in individuals. So whilst doctors can correctly diagnose (as far as that is helpful) and inform, they do not normally have the time and ability to actually develop the required understanding.

Furthermore, the treatment of an illness and the allocation of welfare are not the same thing, so even if doctors know best for one, there is no particular reason to think they do for the other. I know there is nothing helpful here, but I think the original article assumes too much knowledge and ability on the part of doctors, and ignores the fact that medical care and welfare are not the same thing.

@16 – if you want to be so fantastically anal about it, I’ll properly reference the acadamic papers from which Wiki sources the data in relation to my specific point:

‘The Prevalence of Autism’ (Journal of the American Medical Association),

‘The epidemiology of autistic spectrum disorders: is the prevalence rising?’ (Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews),

‘The autism epidemic: fact or artifact?’ (Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York)

In case you missed it, my first post also linked a recent report by Ofsted, which describes the same issue, in that:

“More than a fifth of school-age students in England have been identified as having some form of special educational needs (SEN), which range from physical disabilities to emotional and behavioural problems

“[Ofsted] said up to 25% of the 1.7m pupils in England with special needs would not be so labelled if schools focused more on teaching for all their children. The education standards watchdog said the term “special needs” was being used too widely.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11287193

The “anecdotal” evidence appears to support this.

About the only way you could demonstrate yourself to be any more pathetic would be to claim this is all part of a plot by Jewish lizard men to take over the world.

gwenhwyfaer/4: Well, it might have something to do with all the other social changes in the last 25 years

Another one for your list: far more people are working at all than were 25 years ago because of the substantial rise in the proportion of working women and the smaller rise in the size of the population as a whole. More people wanting to work leads to more people finding that they aren’t able to, either temporarily or permanently, due to illness or disability.

J/19: “[Ofsted] said up to 25% of the 1.7m pupils in England with special needs would not be so labelled if schools focused more on teaching for all their children.”

This struck me as rather tautologous, and a rather straightforward demonstration of the social model of disability. Whether or not particular educational needs are “disabilities” or “special needs” or “expected needs” depends entirely on the school and the methods it uses, but the pupil still has those educational needs whether or not the school is set up to meet them routinely or only after some struggle.

“Routinely”, as Ofsted point out, is of course the better option, and schools should be actively trying to meet the educational needs of pupils as a matter of routine rather than as something that needs special treatment.

4. gwenhwyfaer

However, what I struggle to understand is why in 25 years those who are assessed as unfit to work has trebled?

‘ Well, it might have something to do with all the other social changes in the last 25 years – specifically that employment is no longer secure, mortgaged housing is no longer secure or initally accessible, rented accommodation is no longer secure (tenants can be legally evicted for no reason), full employment no longer exists… And yes, diagnosis has come on by leaps and bounds in the last 25 years – but much more significant, the level of stress required to simply live in this society has gone through the roof, and very many people can’t cope with that, their inability to cope manifesting itself in a variety of mental and physical conditions – permanently elevated levels of cortisol and adrenaline are toxic in themselves. ‘

Why would the security of employment matter to those people not seeking employment?

I don’t get your point about ‘ mortgaged housing is no longer secure ‘.

Mortgage stress surely would also affect the more prosperous but those unfit for work from those groups do not show up in the data.

Why would the lack of full employment cause an increase in the amount of people medically unfit for work?

If the increase in the ‘ level of stress required to simply live in society ‘ was the explanation would this not be more evenly distributed amongst all groups? The increase has been concentrated amongst low skilled males and over the same period female inactivity rates has fallen. Are males more stressed than females?
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa005.pdf

I have no desire to have a go at people who are already disadvantaged but I must say I find your explanations unconvincing. It seems we have a problem through a fall in demand for lower skilled males. I can understand that because certain male labour has been devalued from multiple causes. I suppose only when we recognise where the problem lies will we be able to do anything about it.

J, you quoted the papers from which Wikipedia pulled the quote. Did you read the papers to check that the quote was representative? You rely on a BBC report of a quote from an Ofsted report. Have you read the Ofsted report in question, to check that the BBC’s quote is representative of its findings?

Because as far as I can see, you’re still relying on blind trust and angled reporting – exactly what I pulled you up on in the first place – and now you’re calling me “pathetic” for pulling you up on it. Which is… ironic, really.

cjcjc, most medical conditions which do not begin with a self-report are only discovered when the patient collapses. And please stop with the one-liners; you’re not nearly clever enough.

Richard W, if I gave you the impression my list was intended to be complete or exhaustive, I apologise. It was intended to just give some examples.

Why would the security of employment matter to those people not seeking employment?

You seem to be assuming that people who are not seeking employment now have never sought employment. Don’t do that.

I don’t get your point about ‘ mortgaged housing is no longer secure ‘.

Typo. I meant (and thought I’d written) “accessible”. Although I, for one, felt horribly insecure with a mortgage hanging over my head.

Why would the lack of full employment cause an increase in the amount of people medically unfit for work?

Looking for work is stressful. Looking for work and never being able to find any is utterly soul-destroying. That’s something that will apply particularly to your “low skilled males”.

If the increase in the ‘ level of stress required to simply live in society ‘ was the explanation would this not be more evenly distributed amongst all groups?

It will disproportionately affect the poorer members of that society – those who can’t choose where they live, who can’t choose where or how they work, who are more directly exposed to fluctuating instabilities in market conditions, etc.

The increase has been concentrated amongst low skilled males and over the same period female inactivity rates has fallen. Are males more stressed than females?

Apparently so. The highest suicide rates are to be found amongst young males, and that’s been the case for a rather long time. Now there are the added financial pressures to which you allude.

I have no desire to have a go at people who are already disadvantaged but I must say I find your explanations unconvincing. It seems we have a problem through a fall in demand for lower skilled males.

I don’t disagree that lower skilled males seem to be bearing the brunt of the stresses of modern society. It doesn’t mean that those stresses are borne by them exclusively, and it doesn’t contradict what I said at all, as I hope I’ve demonstrated.

Yes teacher.

Trouble is, the survey you quote to support the hyperbolic contention that the amount of stress “required simply to live” (I’m not sure you mean “required” exactly, do you?) has “gone through the roof” relies solely on self-reporting.

Pagar asked…

“The implication here is that you have because of the relatively soft regulatory regime in place when you were suffering your mental illness you are now no longer a burden on the state and are self sufficient.

Is that correct?”

If Working Tax Credits are a burden on the state then yes, I am, albeit considerably less. I was better off on benefits initially, and for the hours I work the cleaning job at the shop next door has a better annual income in relation to the amount of work I do – the cleaner gets paid a higher hourly rate and earns the same as I do annually from about 4 hours’ work a day.

Sorry, but I work harder and earn less than the “drones” Mr J refers to…