Great article.
I would like to focus a little on the case histories used by Sharpe. We know that sexism in medicine is fairly firmly entrenched. Those of us who have been through the UK benefits system know how the most trivial details can be twisted as evidence to be used against you, while evidence that is truthful & accurate can be ignored. So let's look at the case histories.
1. The female
It doesn't mention whether she has a partner. If she doesn't then she has an added burden of being a single parent. This makes it highly unlikely she will be getting the opportunity to rest & relax as needed.
If she does, then the chances are the couple needed both salaries to cover the bills and they are now under financial pressure. This means if she was able to afford a few hours of childcare here and there that's gone. As will other potentially labour saving treats like a takeaway once a week, a cleaner and so on.
So, even though off work, the chances are this woman is having to do as much as if she were at work.
The case history doesn't tell us how old the woman is. That's important because many women will start going through perimenopause as young as the early 40s. The symptoms can be vague and ill defined and can often start out as hormone imbalance. Hormone imbalance can cause all sorts of symptoms from headaches, increased frequency and severity of migraines, heavier than normal periods, periods that can last slightly longer than usual and leading to anaemia. In turn anaemia can cause breathlessness, palpitations, increased headaches and so on.
This is also a point in a female's life where other issues can develop such as hypothyroidism.
Note the lack of detail in the case history about ruling out any other causes of these symptoms.
2. The male
We aren't told his marital status not whether he has children. We are told about his job title.
His job is one where, even if he is solely responsible for childcare, he will be able to afford childcare. He will most likely be covered by a generous package by his employer so money worries are less likely to be an issue.
Apparently, he states he is unable to work but, at the time when he says he is unable to work he was apparently well enough to go abroad on a diving break (not something one is likely to do is suffering from any breathing difficulties). If I were an investigator for the DWP I would find that interesting.
In addition, it has come to light via twitter that during this period this patient was also going for 5km runs, while also claiming that he suffered from a condition that causes intolerance to exercise.
The case history simply notes that this patient recovered with rehabilitation.
Neither case history is complete. If applying for benefits the male would almost certainly find himself under investigation & probably surveillance.
The conclusion recovered with rehabilitation tells us that if the patient is well enough to take scuba diving holidays and go on 5km runs while at the same time suffering from an illness that causes exercise intolerance they are likely to recover with rehabilitation. Especially when they are then also rewarded with grant money to research the rehabilitation therapy that allegedly worked for them.
If I worked for Swiss Re I think I would be annoyed to have paid good money for such a presentation. At best it's a piece of fluff. At worst it could end up costing me an awful lot of money one day as it gives a wholly misleading picture. I would be mindful of the fines UNUM had to pay in the past.
