Atos Medicals - Questions, Answers and Support

[ViolentPanda]

I read it, thought it was ok. I like biopsychosocial anyway.

It's great if you like 70-year old psychiatric, psychological and sociological concepts served up on a bed of tepid medicalised bullshit.

Me, I prefer something a little less centred on giving psychiatry a new bunch of patients to play with, and more on ongoing medical analysis and research.

 

[mrs quoad]

"Medically unexplained symptoms" is a dustbin diagnosis, and one where you've unwittingly conformed to the medical profession's prejudice by "prescribing" "improving their coping skills/quality of life" (many people, by the time their problem has become chronic, usually know more about coping mechanisms and q of l adjustment and maximisation than their medical professionals do). That's exactly what the biopsychosocial movement prescribe, on the basis that if your symptoms are medically-unexplained, then improving your coping skills is rational. Of course, they also state that medically-unexplained symptoms are artifacts of the interaction of psychological stresses on the physiology of the patient,

With you up to there.

What I'm not sure of - and curious about - is... where medicine should go, if medicine (as it currently stands and is structured) feels that there is nowhere it can go. So to speak. In terms of a meaningful and pragmatic response.

Keep on seeking medical explanations? Always? That... seems to be deifying 'conventional' medicine and its access to explanations in a way that I'm not sure it merits

I guess I also have some hesitancy about ruling out the role of stress / psychological stresses in their entirety as a main / substantial cause of *some people's* problems. AFAICT, the doc quoted (again, my experience of MUS is quite limited) very clearly avoids stating that medically-unexplained symptoms are 'artefacts.' Hence my wariness at the word 'pretend.' It wasn't something I saw in the quoted document, which seemed - tbh - to be taking quite an agnostic approach towards 'unexplained,' rather than using it as a thinly-veiled euphemism for 'bonkers.'

and that "playing the sick role" garners more reward than merely being unemployed etc.

I don't see that in the doc quoted. And I'm guessing that not all doctors who believe in the validity of a 'medically unexplained symptoms' approach would buy into that; not without the hefty qualifier that emotional / psychological rewards are very individual things, so couldn't meaningfully be unilaterally applied to a group. Again, the doc quoted above seemed to me (at a reading) to be agnostic wrt employability / emotional rewards, etc.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What it actually says is that doctors should take the symptoms seriously; should avoid the argument over whether their root is psychological or not; and should focus on stopping them.

Seems sensible, even for the case of the patient who's prepared to suffer the symptoms indefinitely or until they get a non-psychological diagnosis with a handy pill.

I'm not sure about "sensible", although it may seem convenient, and you appear to be arguing against one of the planks of the biopsychosocial ideology, when you posit that with a non-psychological diagnosis and a pill, the patient becomes treatable.

 

[Frankie Jack]

With you up to there.

What I'm not sure of - and curious about - is... where medicine should go, if medicine (as it currently stands and is structured) feels that there is nowhere it can go. So to speak. In terms of a meaningful and pragmatic response.

Keep on seeking medical explanations? Always? That... seems to be deifying 'conventional' medicine and its access to explanations in a way that I'm not sure it merits

I guess I also have some hesitancy about ruling out the role of stress / psychological stresses in their entirety as a main / substantial cause of *some people's* problems. AFAICT, the doc quoted (again, my experience of MUS is quite limited) very clearly avoids stating that medically-unexplained symptoms are 'artefacts.' Hence my wariness at the word 'pretend.' It wasn't something I saw in the quoted document, which seemed - tbh - to be taking quite an agnostic approach towards 'unexplained,' rather than using it as a thinly-veiled euphemism for 'bonkers.'


I don't see that in the doc quoted. And I'm guessing that not all doctors who believe in the validity of a 'medically unexplained symptoms' approach would buy into that; not without the hefty qualifier that emotional / psychological rewards are very individual things, so couldn't meaningfully be unilaterally applied to a group. Again, the doc quoted above seemed to me (at a reading) to be agnostic wrt employability / emotional rewards, etc.

This may give a better insight to they Aylward crew and their biopsychosocial babble.

Gill Thorburn
A response to Professor Aylward's statement to Black Triangle and DPAC
outside the IFDM2012 conference, on 11th September 2012.

Fron page 2

For anyone unaware of this concept, it promotes,
among other things, the notion that a sick person has much to gain from 'playing' the sick role. Patients are portrayed as accruing certain advantages from being ill (or merely claiming to be so). These are so-called secondary gains such as 'exemption from 'performing' in society, and from social responsibilities, as well as receiving attention and help that those
who do not claim sickness cannot. Those are the 'rights' that sick people enjoy. On the other side is the obligation to do everything a person possibly can to get better and participate fully in society. The problem around this, of course, is the assumption that illness can always be recovered from, that the sick will always heal. This is a notion which is not only unhelpful,
but is positively harmful when the sick role is attached to the long-term, chronically ill. This, however, is the very aspect of ‘the social' which Professor Aylward evidently gives priority to in his theories. And it is exactly that idea which is incorporated within the WCA, whereby chronically sick people, with progressive and sometimes terminal illnesses are being forced into a perpetual round of reassessment, the black magic roundabout administered by Atos, just in case they have magically become 'well'. When we have a situation of someone with Down's syndrome being asked at their WCA how long they have had that 'condition', it is not hard to visualise that she too will be continually reassessed to see if her 'condition' improves
over time.

 

[ViolentPanda]

With you up to there.


What I'm not sure of - and curious about - is... where medicine should go, if medicine (as it currently stands and is structured) feels that there is nowhere it can go. So to speak. In terms of a meaningful and pragmatic response.

The structure is part of the problem, IMO, especially with the issues of the last 20 years or so with the onus on universities to make research pay. A significant minority of the research that the biopsychosocial school base their approach on is small-sample and poorly-controlled, but if it's what the universities are offered funding for (usually, in this field, from the makers and sellers of happy pills, then it's what gets researched.
Personally, I'm not willing to give credence to research that posits a psychological basis (to give one example) for an illness base on a sample of 12 patients (2 of whom were introduced to the research after it started) conforming to a set of criteria that didn't match any extant set of diagnostic criteria for the same illness in either the DSM or ICD, and who benefitted (in this case) from Prozac.
I'm also wary of any scientist who attempts to reanimate the long-dead and justly-ridiculed corpse of "the sick role". I'm no logical positivist, but I do have some standards!

I guess I also have some hesitancy about ruling out the role of stress / psychological stresses in their entirety as a main / substantial cause of *some people's* problems. AFAICT, the doc quoted (again, my experience of MUS is quite limited) very clearly avoids stating that medically-unexplained symptoms are 'artefacts.' Hence my wariness at the word 'pretend.' It wasn't something I saw in the quoted document, which seemed - tbh - to be taking quite an agnostic approach towards 'unexplained,' rather than using it as a thinly-veiled euphemism for 'bonkers.'

Well, I'd agree with you if I didn't know (from following this debate as it has unfolded over the last 20 years) that clinicians etc are very careful nowadays to not enunciate their thoughts near those they are examining, just to spout a few inconsequentials and not give away to the patient any "hostages to fortune" in the shape of voiced assumptions about them somatising their stress. It used to happen all the time, 20 years ago. Nowadays those people operating under the biopsychosocial rubric tend to guard their words more carefully.

And yeah, sounds like conspiracy theory, doesn't it?

I don't see that in the doc quoted. And I'm guessing that not all doctors who believe in the validity of a 'medically unexplained symptoms' approach would buy into that; not without the hefty qualifier that emotional / psychological rewards are very individual things, so couldn't meaningfully be unilaterally applied to a group. Again, the doc quoted above seemed to me (at a reading) to be agnostic wrt employability / emotional rewards, etc.

If clinicians and scientists were entirely neutral, I'd absolutely agree with you, but we're both social scientists, and we both know that nothing is produced in a vacuum; that interests infiltrate all research and all attitudes. That makes me cycnical about any agnosticism, and the motivation for it.[/quote]

 

[audiotech]

BRING IT ON!!!

 

[Celt]

With you up to there.
t merits snip


I don't see that in the doc quoted. And I'm guessing that not all doctors who believe in the validity of a 'medically unexplained symptoms' approach would buy into that; not without the hefty qualifier that emotional / psychological rewards are very individual things, so couldn't meaningfully be unilaterally applied to a group. Again, the doc quoted above seemed to me (at a reading) to be agnostic wrt employability / emotional rewards, etc.

Stress certainly doesn't produce good things for those of us with both physical and mental health problems.

Doctors don't actually do the assesments that this thread refers to (the atos medical, questions answers and support)

I suppose the above discussion is referring more to the ATOS policies that produce the questions asked by the nurse (dental? Medical? Vetinary?) at my medical last week, after which I am left so stressed that I am word blind, and can't think outside my very small box at the moment.

 

[WouldBe]

Quote from the notes from my ATOS assessment "client does not appear depressed".

That's why ATOS get a bad press. Because the assessors write complete and utter shit that should have any medical professional struck off by the relevant professional bodies.

Have you reported your medical "professional" to their governing body?

If not then do it.

If we get enough of these cretins sacked then others will think twice about becoming an ATOSer.

 

[Frankie Jack]

Sonia Poulton and Simon Wessely *another Babbliopsychosocial 'expert'. Story all together on Black Triangles Site.

‘ME is no more ‘in the mind’ than MS’ ~ Professor Simon Wessely responds to journalist Sonia Poulton’s article

Sonia Poulton 21 September at 06:30
Woke to find a long e-mail from Professor Simon Wessley…for those who don’t know, he is the big State cheese when it comes to ME…for many people his name represents years of their personal misery.
My recent article on ME, effectively, opposes his stance on the illness and I have been repeatedly warned that I can expect a communication from him…well it came…he says I ‘may be surprised to discover’ that he agrees with most of my article and then he goes on to detail how much of it he actually didn’t like at all.

Professor Simon Wessely
He didn’t like me blaming psychiatry for standing in the way of research and treatment…he didn’t like that I didn’t give him credit for his ‘contribution to the debate’ and he most definitely did not like the idea that I say graded exercise is detrimental to the patient…oh no! That did not impress him at all.
He said it all in a very nice way but it doesn’t take much to pick up the true tone of how someone feels about you…anyway, he invited me to meet him for a coffee to discuss his stance further…I have pointed out to him that I am extremely busy at the moment but I will be back in touch.
The truth is this…I have done my research, and he knows it, and while as a journalist I should always be prepared to hear the other side of the story (I am) there comes a point when you know what you know and no amount of sharp words can change that…

 

[Frankie Jack]

For any one who wonders why I'm posting these types of articles here.. It's these people who have been advising governments about the WRA and WCA since way back in the early 90s and are the reason we're going through so much shit now to prove that we are sick and disabled.

 

[ericjarvis]

Have you reported your medical "professional" to their governing body?

If not then do it.

If we get enough of these cretins sacked then others will think twice about becoming an ATOSer.

I pointed out at the tribunal that the name given for the assessor was the same as the DSS doctor who had assessed me two years before, but was clearly a different person, despite there only being one qualified doctor with that name registered with the BMA.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sonia Poulton and Simon Wessely *another Babbliopsychosocial 'expert'. Story all together on Black Triangles Site.

‘ME is no more ‘in the mind’ than MS’ ~ Professor Simon Wessely responds to journalist Sonia Poulton’s article

Wessely attempting to verbally bully and/or patronise those who disagree with him isn't novel behaviour for him, and for a psychiatrist he descends a little too often into self-pity for his own good. Perhaps he's depressed, eh?

 

[Frankie Jack]

His missus Clare Gerada could treat him.. or tell him to pull himself together.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Took himself to GP today and receptionist said "oh, we were just about to send off your doctor's report" (I assume requested by ATOS). So I reckon that means we should be expecting an assessment soon

Asked her if I could have a look and told me I wasn't allowed. Was to be expected I suppose

 

[equationgirl]

I pointed out at the tribunal that the name given for the assessor was the same as the DSS doctor who had assessed me two years before, but was clearly a different person, despite there only being one qualified doctor with that name registered with the BMA.

Now that's interesting - does the DWP reuse doctors' names and identities in some fashion, or do they just get a kick out of blatantly lying to people?

 

[equationgirl]

Took himself to GP today and receptionist said "oh, we were just about to send off your doctor's report" (I assume requested by ATOS). So I reckon that means we should be expecting an assessment soon

Asked her if I could have a look and told me I wasn't allowed. Was to be expected I suppose

First, you could put in a data protection request to the surgery, and they would be obliged to hand over all information they hold about himself and his condition, so I suspect what she said was wrong.

Second, ATOS do sometimes make decisions based on information provided by the claimant and their GP/consultants without interviews. Yardie's case was like that. Don't lose heart yet.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

First, you could put in a data protection request to the surgery, and they would be obliged to hand over all information they hold about himself and his condition, so I suspect what she said was wrong.

Second, ATOS do sometimes make decisions based on information provided by the claimant and their GP/consultants without interviews. Yardie's case was like that. Don't lose heart yet.

Thing is, none of the doctors know him. I reckon we've met 3 or 4 of them but only once, so fuck knows what information they'll have supplied

We're not being lucky at the moment so I'm not in an optimistic mood

 

[equationgirl]

Thing is, none of the doctors know him. I reckon we've met 3 or 4 of them but only once, so fuck knows what information they'll have supplied

We're not being lucky at the moment so I'm not in an optimistic mood

He's fairly unique, you think they would!!!!!

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

He's fairly unique, you think they would!!!!!

That's one word for him I suppose

 

[Frankie Jack]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2012-09-13a.532.0
Michael Meacher and Mark Hoban debate on Colin Traynor and the WCA.

I fucking hate Hoban alrady..

 

[ericjarvis]

Now that's interesting - does the DWP reuse doctors' names and identities in some fashion, or do they just get a kick out of blatantly lying to people?

My guess is that they just get whoever happens to be handy to sign off any assessments the medical professional/amateur neglected to sign at the time. Alternatively it may just be that they can never read the handwriting and just have to guess.

What concerns me most is that the DWP have NO access to the original notes, nor to ANYTHING to confirm the medical professional's credentials, or even identity. It's a system built to enable fraud... by ATOS.

 

[WouldBe]

Took himself to GP today and receptionist said "oh, we were just about to send off your doctor's report" (I assume requested by ATOS). So I reckon that means we should be expecting an assessment soon

Asked her if I could have a look and told me I wasn't allowed. Was to be expected I suppose

Which is stupid as when you request a copy of you DWP notes for appeal you get a copy of the doctors report as well.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Which is stupid as when you request a copy of you DWP notes for appeal you get a copy of the doctors report as well.

Oh, never knew that. Should be interesting to find out what a doctor who's only met him once has to say about him

 

[WouldBe]

Oh, never knew that. Should be interesting to find out what a doctor who's only met him once has to say about him

Probably not much.

All mine said was "2004 head MRI scan - clear" and that was it.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Probably not much.

All mine said was "2004 head MRI scan - clear" and that was it.

 

[Frankie Jack]

Sacked by the DWP for mental illness, Found fit to work by Atos.
A Daily Express link..

 

[equationgirl]

Former Marine who lost leg in Afghanistan is judged fit for work by Atos
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/royal-marine-who-lost-limb-1347913

Aaron, from Bolton, said: “He read out my injuries, including the amputation, before examining me.

“He asked me to point down my left foot, then my right foot, and I said, ‘I haven’t got a right foot’ and he said, ‘Oh, right’.

“He said, ‘Can you move your toes?’ I said, ‘I’ve no leg.’

“I took it off to show him and he looked surprised.

“I was shocked. He’d read out my notes but didn’t seem to know my injuries.”

 

[Greebo]

Former Marine who lost leg in Afghanistan is judged fit for work by Atos<snip>

Why am I not surprised?

 

[equationgirl]

Why am I not surprised?

Me neither

 

[Quartz]

Umm... he may not be fit for manual labour but the loss of his leg won't affect his ability to do clerical work, will it? It's his other injuries - especially the spinal and pelvic ones - that strike me as more important.