Article: ‘Biopsychosocial’ basis for benefit cuts is ‘cavalier, unevidenced and misleading’

Andy · Dec 22, 2017

Article from earlier in the year.

The research that successive governments have relied on to justify slashing disability benefits over more than a decade is riddled with inconsistencies, misleading statements and “unevidenced” claims, according to three disabled academics.

A new article by Professor Tom Shakespeare and Professor Nicholas Watson, and fellow academic Ola Abu Alghaib, concludes that the biopsychosocial model of health (BPS) “does not represent evidence-based policy”.

The BPS under-pinned Labour’s out-of-work disability benefit employment and support allowance (ESA) and the work capability assessment (WCA), which has since been linked repeatedly to relapses, episodes of self-harm, and even suicides and other deaths, among those who have been assessed and found fit for work.

BPS has also “played a key role” in the tightening of eligibility criteria for ESA and other disability benefits by the subsequent coalition and Tory governments, including the new personal independence payment and universal credit, even though there is “no coherent theory or evidence” behind it, say the three authors.
Click to expand...

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.co...-cuts-is-cavalier-unevidenced-and-misleading/

Esther12 · Dec 22, 2017

And here's the paper that article is about: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/58235/1/1351_Shakespeare.pdf

Inara · Dec 23, 2017

Very good article.

DWP spokeswoman said:

We work with experts on disability issues and look at a wide range of evidence when developing policies that will affect disabled people...
Click to expand...

Sure. A wide range of BPS papers. (Emphasize is mine.)

That's what I observed often, too:

Shakespeare et al. said:

“They also tend to cite their own, non-peer reviewed papers extensively.”
Click to expand...

They point to “inconsistencies” and “misleading statements”, and they say that the authors “rely on unevidenced assertions throughout their work”.

They add: “Waddell and Aylward slide between general statements that are scientifically valid and specific statements that are matters of opinion or political prejudice.
Click to expand...

I fear the authors' paper will go unheeded. The BPS model is great for saving money.

Sean · Dec 23, 2017

Waddell and Aylward have a lot of innocent blood on their hands.

Log in or Sign up

Article: ‘Biopsychosocial’ basis for benefit cuts is ‘cavalier, unevidenced and misleading’

Andy Committee Member

Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Inara Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Article: ‘Biopsychosocial’ basis for benefit cuts is ‘cavalier, unevidenced and misleading’

Andy Committee Member

Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Inara Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Share This Page

Useful Searches