Can payment be made conditional on treatment?

Different people have different views of what treatment is appropriate or effective. Should it really be someone from the DWP deciding what it appropriate? Come to it, should a doctor have the final say on what treatment is appropriate except for someone unable to make a decision for themselves?

Survivor wrote:

Different people have different views of what treatment is appropriate or effective. Should it really be someone from the DWP deciding what it appropriate? Come to it, should a doctor have the final say on what treatment is appropriate except for someone unable to make a decision for themselves?

treatment is supposed to be by informed consent on the understanding that the treatment will be for the good of the person undergoing treatment

The OP's question is very vague. M didn't say what benefit is being claimed (assuming it is a benefit payment) so I don't see the point in having a discussion until we all know what we are talking about.

why would anyone not want treatment?

Because of the risks of becoming worse after treatment.

I have an AVM and was told the risks of anything going wrong was less than 1% so selected to go ahead, after all less than 1% put the odds greatly in my favour.
After the op I found out that I had nearly died, had fits & been in the ICU for 4 days.
So IMO any doctor forcing someone to have treatment for a condition that has even the slightest of risks should be charged with the murder of that person if they die due to the operation, or pay compensation if they end up worse than before the op.
Why should a doctor working for either the NHS, ATOS or the DWP force someone into having treatment? An NHS doctor wouldn't but one working for the other 2 are more likely to tell a claimant to seek treatment or lose money IMHO

Marshal_534 wrote:

Is it legal for payment to be made contingent on undertaking a specific treatment?

If you mean could a drug addict be asked to get counselling and a rehabilitation course as a condition of getting benefits then I am pretty certain that is legal.
I can't think of any other instance where such a policy would be legal.

dean stockton wrote:

why would anyone not want treatment?

Because of the risks of becoming worse after treatment.

I have an AVM and was told the risks of anything going wrong was less than 1% so selected to go ahead, after all less than 1% put the odds greatly in my favour.
After the op I found out that I had nearly died, had fits & been in the ICU for 4 days.
So IMO any doctor forcing someone to have treatment for a condition that has even the slightest of risks should be charged with the murder of that person if they die due to the operation, or pay compensation if they end up worse than before the op.
Why should a doctor working for either the NHS, ATOS or the DWP force someone into having treatment? An NHS doctor wouldn't but one working for the other 2 are more likely to tell a claimant to seek treatment or lose money IMHO

your selecctive posting of post is interesting and done to help your post,which then goes off at a tangent talking about forced treatment which was not what anyone was talking about

nor I doubt was your treatment someone would have given you info and you would have signed a form to let them go ahead

odds very good but you where unlucky any treatment carried risk a ct scan has a 1 in 10,000 risk of killing you by giving you cancer the local given when stiches are given killed 4 people 2009

a common endoscope operation kills about 44 a year


your risk of dying from not having treatment what was that ? avm ? if it goes pop few make it to the table ?

the problem we are going to have in future is they could well bring in rules that all sort of problems have to be treated our you wont get benefits, I can see it happening and where some people will take your postion others will take the notice of this point of view


www.b12d.org/content/benefits-trap-%E2%8...refuse-b12-treatment