Has anybody with ASD (adult) got DLA and what rate is normally awarded for AS? I haven't had a reply yet but my eldest's DLA was refused so now I don't hold much hope that they will grant mine.
Has anybody with ASD (adult) got DLA and what rate is normally awarded for AS? I haven't had a reply yet but my eldest's DLA was refused so now I don't hold much hope that they will grant mine.
Scorpion0x17 said:[quote]So why can no one campaign(NAS) and say certain diagnosed conditions (AUTISM) should be exempt from continous (target) assessment taking into account the condition. The pressure is too much for me.[/quote]
The problem with that is that not everyone with Autism (or most other diagnoses) is completely unable to work, and many of us do find that things improve over time, with the right support.
Should (a) a person be consigned to the scrap heap of life, and (b) the taxpayer continue to support a person that no longer needs it, simply because of that person's diagnosis?
In fact, I am on the other side of the fence altogether - I would love to get back into work, but find that there is nothing in place to meet the support I would need to do so, and so I'm left alone, by the system, to rot.
Openheart didn't seem to be asking to be exempted from any assessments: just from endless coninuous assessments.
Claiming DLA is nothing to do with whether you are working or not or are able to: DLA is supposed to account for the extra costs a person incurs in life because of a disability, and can be claimed regardless of whether you are working or not. So I don't see why the fact that not eveyone with autism is unable to work is relevant to the thread.
I don't see how even awarding somebody DLA for life would be "consigning them to the scrap heap" either: it would just be saying that they are likely to continue incurring extra costs because of their disability for life.
It is interesting there are people who want endless repeated assessments for people claiming disability benefits but when it comes to, say, driving licenses it is just assumed that everybody will be honest enough to declare any medical conditions. When I applied for my driving license I didn't have to provide any medical evidence that I was fit to do so or pass any eye test; I just had to sign to say that I could read a number plate at the required distance. I did have to do the number plate test before my driving test (over nine years ago), but since then I have just been trusted to a) get my eyes checked regularly to establish whether they had changed (one eye has altered substantially over that time), b) get different glasses if necessary, and c) tell the DVLA and surrender my license if my vision got too bad. And every 10 years it's a simple "tick and sign" to renew my license: no actual checks or even a second signature required. Of course, once I reach 75 I will have to also tick a box to say that I am still medically capable of driving. My grandpa (over 90) is still ticking this box and signing, and keeping his license, even though everybody else says that there is no way that he should be driving. Nobody is checking up on this, and somebody could be killed or seriously injured as a result (at massive cost to the taxpayer!)
What assessments there are need to be designed so that the disabled people who need the benefits can realistically cope with them, which could mean different systems for people with different kinds of diabilities. Expecting somebody with autism and OCD to go through a system that they can't cope with because of their disabilities seems a bit like asking somebody in a wheelchair to go to the second floor of a building with no lifts to do the assessment. (I know that ATOS do use buildings without wheelchair access for assessment offices though, so perhaps it's equally rubbish for everybody).
Scorpion0x17 said:[quote]So why can no one campaign(NAS) and say certain diagnosed conditions (AUTISM) should be exempt from continous (target) assessment taking into account the condition. The pressure is too much for me.[/quote]
The problem with that is that not everyone with Autism (or most other diagnoses) is completely unable to work, and many of us do find that things improve over time, with the right support.
Should (a) a person be consigned to the scrap heap of life, and (b) the taxpayer continue to support a person that no longer needs it, simply because of that person's diagnosis?
In fact, I am on the other side of the fence altogether - I would love to get back into work, but find that there is nothing in place to meet the support I would need to do so, and so I'm left alone, by the system, to rot.
Openheart didn't seem to be asking to be exempted from any assessments: just from endless coninuous assessments.
Claiming DLA is nothing to do with whether you are working or not or are able to: DLA is supposed to account for the extra costs a person incurs in life because of a disability, and can be claimed regardless of whether you are working or not. So I don't see why the fact that not eveyone with autism is unable to work is relevant to the thread.
I don't see how even awarding somebody DLA for life would be "consigning them to the scrap heap" either: it would just be saying that they are likely to continue incurring extra costs because of their disability for life.
It is interesting there are people who want endless repeated assessments for people claiming disability benefits but when it comes to, say, driving licenses it is just assumed that everybody will be honest enough to declare any medical conditions. When I applied for my driving license I didn't have to provide any medical evidence that I was fit to do so or pass any eye test; I just had to sign to say that I could read a number plate at the required distance. I did have to do the number plate test before my driving test (over nine years ago), but since then I have just been trusted to a) get my eyes checked regularly to establish whether they had changed (one eye has altered substantially over that time), b) get different glasses if necessary, and c) tell the DVLA and surrender my license if my vision got too bad. And every 10 years it's a simple "tick and sign" to renew my license: no actual checks or even a second signature required. Of course, once I reach 75 I will have to also tick a box to say that I am still medically capable of driving. My grandpa (over 90) is still ticking this box and signing, and keeping his license, even though everybody else says that there is no way that he should be driving. Nobody is checking up on this, and somebody could be killed or seriously injured as a result (at massive cost to the taxpayer!)
What assessments there are need to be designed so that the disabled people who need the benefits can realistically cope with them, which could mean different systems for people with different kinds of diabilities. Expecting somebody with autism and OCD to go through a system that they can't cope with because of their disabilities seems a bit like asking somebody in a wheelchair to go to the second floor of a building with no lifts to do the assessment. (I know that ATOS do use buildings without wheelchair access for assessment offices though, so perhaps it's equally rubbish for everybody).
