Reviews revised
In the letter ‘The benefits of work’ (PN 110) the author argues
those ‘in good health and capable of working’ should be reviewed
and blames the government for making it ‘too easy for these long-term
survivors’.
Although the author states there are people who ‘truly need to be on
benefits’, those able to maintain their health do better by working,
‘as it is well proven’. It is also ‘well proven’ that
stress can adversely impact on immune function.
These views are somewhat simplistic. It is assumed that if people are healthy
then ‘they’ should work. However it may be that ‘not working’
is a critical variable in their ability to maintain health.
I agree governmental reviews could be beneficial, not with the agenda of getting
‘these people’ back to work, but to
further understand the complex
individual needs of long-term survivors. At present, individuals who would
like to ‘try’ working again can expect to meet a variety of stressors;
will work have a detrimental effect on an already established (and often hard
to maintain) level of health? If health deteriorates, will
benefits be accessible again?
As a psychologist specialising in health and as someone who has lived with
HIV since 1991, I argue that the letter only goes to perpetuate potentially
damaging generalisations and discourses which only add more uncertainties
and stress to people who already have enough of both.
John, London
Further revision
In ‘The benefits of work’ letter (PN 110) the writer believes
people with HIV on DLA should be reviewed. I would put it to the writer that
not all people with HIV, who have been forced to give up work because of their
health, can or want to return to work. I was forced to give up work four years
ago because of stress-induced illnesses, after working for 16 years with HIV.
Self-discipline is needed initially to keep oneself occupied, but my life
is now full of purpose. I engage in voluntary and committee work, visit friends
and relatives, get good sleep, nutrition and exercise to help my illness,
all the things I never had the time to do when working.
I had a considerable reduction in income when I took ill-health retirement,
but it was worth it to avoid the stress of the workplace and commuting. I
am now 52, and out-of-touch with the latest technical and safety developments
in my previous career as a civil engineer. I have suffered various HIV-related
illnesses, I take 15 tablets a day, and my body is tired. I have to make regular
visits to hospital, and have suffered the trauma of losing well over 30 friends
and acquaintances to Aids. I have no doubt that a forced return to work would
seriously damage my remaining health.
My DLA was recently stopped following a periodic enquiry and I am currently
going to appeal. I was only getting the relatively small, middle-rate care
component, and losing this has not forced me back to work. It has simply made
my life more stressful and further damaged my health.
Name and address supplied
Over it
I get low rate mobility and care DLA, but I am over feeling any resentment
towards those who have been diagnosed longer and got top rate ‘for life’.
The people I know in this category have certainly not had it easy. The government
and letter writer should leave them alone unless there is a complete overhaul
in mechanisms to encourage and support those trying to return to work. Make
the DDA really work; make job-shares work; make Working Tax Credit with Disability
Element work; remove the problems around disclosing your status to your employer;
and fund projects like Positive Futures to be available nationally.
Do all that and more before even
considering reviewing disability benefits for people living with HIV.
Also, I’m not sure the writer is correct that it is ‘well-proven’
a person’s health is better when working. Sounds like the kind of Protestant
work-ethic that justified keeping people in factories in the 19th century
for 14 hours a day. Some people thrive on stress and I would say Chris Smith
is a good example - good for him. Perhaps for others the removal of the stress
of having to work while living with HIV is the reason why they have managed
to stabilise their health.
Natasha, Nottingham
Testing times
Your editorial about Michael Howard’s plan for TB and HIV testing of
migrants claims that “people found to be living with HIV would be booted
out because they might become a burden on the NHS”. This is inaccurate.
Only a TB diagnosis would result in automatic refusal of entry. A decision
to deport because of an HIV diagnosis would be on a ‘case by case basis’
- whatever that means. That doesn’t mean the policy is anything other
than idiotic, however. You are quite right to identify the possibility of
a black market in health documents if the tests occur abroad. If the tests
were to occur in the UK, all migrants would have to be detained in secure
accommodation for six months and tested at the end to ensure a recent HIV
infection was not missed.
There is undoubtedly a serious problem with a large proportion of new infections
being in people arriving from abroad. This is, however, completely the wrong
way to tackle the problem.
James, London
Go Kay’e
I read the piece by Kay’e Balogun (PN 109) with great interest. As a
(white, gay) South African expatriate I was appalled to encounter what appeared
to me to be a practice in keeping with the traditions of apartheid South Africa:
the racial separation in all the HIV support centres around London.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Balogun’s view that this practice is
divisive, and encourages a climate of envy, distrust, racial tension and homophobia.
Apartheid in South Africa was, apart from being morally abhorrent, very expensive
in terms of the need for duplication of everything. Current politically correct
thinking flies in the face of good common sense.
Quite right Kay’e. “Let’s respect and
celebrate our differences but equally, let’s kick racism and homophobia
into touch once and for all.”
Pierre Montocchio, Brighton.
Write to:
Letters, Positive Nation,
250 Kennington Lane,
London, SE11 5RD or email
editor@positivenation.co.uk
or fax 020 7564 2140.
Please include your address and phone number although these need not be published.
Letters may be edited for length. Views expressed in letters are not necessary
those of PN or the UKC
