Providing a humanising service


for our dehumanised clients Jessica Saff er


Between July 2016 and April 2017, I interviewed people with physical health diffi culties to explore how they experienced the recent changes to disability benefi ts in the context of large reductions in public spending in the UK. I have writ en this article using feedback and comments from those who took part in this research. I hope it will guide us, as concerned members of society or as clinicians, to expand our practices in order to provide more humanising support for marginalised disabled people in our society.


Previous research: the


disproportionate eff ect of public spending cuts on the most vulnerable


Many groups, from disabled people’s


organisations, such as The Black Triangle Campaign (2015) and UN committees, have expressed concerns regarding the signifi cant detrimental impact of reductions in public spending on the most vulnerable and marginalised groups in society, including people with disabilities (Alston, 2018; UNCRPD, 2016). They assert that the UK’s austerity policies breach international human-rights obligations, and have called for the benefi t cuts that were introduced in the 2012 and 2016 Welfare Reform Acts to be reversed. In general, living with a disability increases


the cost of living, contributing to fi nancial hardship, and welfare cuts on top of this then result in “arrears, debts, evictions and cuts to essentials such as housing and food” (UNCRPD, 2016, p. 17). The recent surge in the use of foodbanks in the UK (Loopstra et al., 2015) suggests that many people are struggling to provide suffi cient food for themselves and their families. Such fi nancial insecurity is likely to adversely aff ect people’s physical as well as mental health (Richardson et al., 2013). The process of applying, being assessed


and re-assessed for benefi ts has been linked to distress (McCartney, 2012). This includes signifi cant increases in suicides, self-reported mental health problems and antidepressant use (Barr et al., 2016). People requiring disability benefi ts often face the added stigma of public opinion. Views of claimants as ‘lazy’ and ‘undeserving’ of help are exacerbated by widespread negative media attention with the rhetoric of ‘shirkers’, ‘scroungers’ or ‘cheats’ (Briant et al., 2013). As a result, claimants can experience and internalise the stigma and feelings of shame not only of their disability, but also the additional humiliation of the


34


association with benefi ts receipt (Baumberg, 2016). Given that an estimated 4.5 million people


in the UK have a signifi cant disability that impacts their daily life and capacity to work in a society which privileges the able-bodied (Duff y, 2014), the implications of withdrawing life-enabling support is both discriminatory and dehumanising.


How people with physical health conditions experience the UK benefi ts system


Here, I provide an overview of the three


main categories in my research fi ndings (see Saff er et al., 2018, for further details). I quote people’s own words, but use pseudonyms to protect their anonymity.


Navigating a dehumanising system


The people I interviewed told me


they experienced the benefi ts system as overwhelmingly complex, unclear, unpredictable and unreliable. They described a system unsuitable for people who are unwell, particularly those who have fl uctuating or degenerative conditions, with assessors who lacked relevant knowledge about specifi c disabilities. “They don’t give you information, you


know; it’s all just a wild goose chase.” (Eve) Some feared that the system was


intentionally complex and misleading in order to reduce the number of people who were receiving benefi ts, leading to a deep distrust in the process. Many people felt that the assessment process was driven politically rather than by their needs. “The system has been deliberately slanted


to remove people from social security.” (Grace) Living with this ongoing uncertainty


and stress has signifi cant detrimental implications for many people’s wellbeing.


“…you’re always waiting...it always feels like


there’s something hanging over you, like you’re always waiting for the hammer to fall kind of thing, ‘cos you don’t know what they’re gonna cut next or how they’re gonna do it…” (Bryony)


Living in a judgemental society Most of the people who took part in the


research felt personally aff ected by the rhetoric about and stereotyping of benefi t claimants, and sensed that they were judged as ‘scrounging’ or ‘shirking’. They found this language extremely stigmatising and felt misunderstood, both by those within the benefi ts system and the general public. “They [the government] pump TV


programmes to demonise these benefi t claimants.” (Kelvin) As a result of the ignorance and judgement,


people in this research described being treated unjustly, and even bullied, by both staff in the benefi ts system and by the general public. Many felt they weren’t believed about their needs, as if they were fraudulently applying for benefi ts. “I’m treated like I’m a very naughty little


teenager.” “Bullying. That’s all I can think is bullying.” (Eve)


Clinging on to my sense of self The research shows that navigating the


benefi ts system and living in a judgemental society leads to people having diffi culties not only with their fi nances, but also with their mental and physical health and wellbeing. “I literally got to a point of heat or eat”


(Grace) “…everything sort of, everything became


small. Just me and my little estate.” (Grace) Additionally, people’s quality of life and


sense of themselves as equals in society were dramatically impacted. “The driver would shout down the bus that the wheelchair needs to get off . It is just a tiny thing that I think undermines, or can


Context 164, August 2019


Providing a humanising service for our dehumanised clients


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76