In Sickness and in Health

I spend rather more time reading and listening to the radio these days, as my arms remain determined to pursue their status as redundant appendages, rather than reliable tools. I continue as editor of this website, using iListen, voice recognition software, which despite hiccups along the way, as we learned to accommodate each other's foibles, has now become an indispensable part of my working life. Although still not 100 percent reliable, the fact that it can make possible a job that formerly required hours of keyboard and mouse use, is a testament to the progress that has been made in this area.

And when I heard Alan Johnson, the health secretary, announcing that in future doctors should be issuing well notes, rather than sick notes, to encourage employers and employees alike to think about what people could do, rather than what they couldn't, my own situation seemed to provide an interesting illustration.

Almost certainly, if I had an employer, they would have stopped me working many months ago, when overuse of the computer first made my hands and arms too painful to continue. Rest is always the first prescribed treatment for repetitive strain injuries, and - perhaps also with an eye on some very large tribunal awards for work-related disabilities - responsible employers take no chances with the long-term well-being of their people.

But not having an employer, I don't have anyone telling me I mustn't work. Independent Living is my passion, and I'm not about to relinquish it.

So, rather as the government minister is recommending that occupational therapists should be assessing how much and what type of work someone can do when they have been ill, I have run a uniquely qualified eye over my own situation, and acquired the necessary tools to help me keep working. I am not as productive as I used to be - but given that high productivity almost certainly contributed to the problem, maybe that isn't so bad. And most importantly, instead of adding mental health problems of stress and depression to my woes, I do wake up most mornings, focused on what I can do, rather than what I can't.

Grasping the nettle of Incapacity Benefit

The government is planning to introduce a new test for incapacity benefit. Commentary from groups representing disabled people has been almost universally hostile, and there are no doubt very real fears that pressure may be put on vulnerable people to take a job when they are not really able to cope. People with mental health problems and certain conditions with symptoms of varying intensity are likely to be most affected.

Currently, some 2.64 million people receive incapacity benefit; a figure significantly augmented by unspoken government policy over the years to keep unemployment figures at a respectable level by encouraging greater take up of incapacity benefit. In areas where jobs are in short supply, it is not unknown for as many as one in five of the working age population to be in receipt of this benefit.

Clearly, this nettle had to be grasped, and the government has been promising to do so for some time. I find the principle of introducing a test that focuses on what an individual can do, rather than what they can't, wholly admirable. It is surely right to work from a presumption of ability, rather than adopting a patronising attitude that people with disabilities are unable to make a contribution.

Since the Disability Discrimination Act became law, we have seen attitudes slowly changing. Businesses are much more aware of the needs of disabled consumers, and while the situation is far from perfect, it is significantly easier now for individuals with a range of impairments to access goods and services without a struggle. Places of work and education are required not to discriminate on the grounds of disability - if we make the case, rightly, to employers that disabled people have a lot to offer, surely we must apply the same criteria to judging the capabilities of an individual who is currently not in work.

All the research shows that people who work enjoy better health and well-being than those who remain on benefits for an extended period of time. And it is a fact that anyone who spends two years on incapacity benefit is more likely to retire or die than to find a job. This has to be changed.

When I wrote recently about the dangers of positive discrimination, the response was pretty mixed, with a number of disabled people saying that they found it so hard to get a job, they'd take any assistance that was offered. I still believe that the risks inherent in ringfencing jobs for individuals with disabilities outweigh any benefits, but at the same time, society must work to remove obstacles in the path to employment. A test that focuses on abilities, rather than incapacities, allied to a support system that will genuinely assist individuals in obtaining the skills and confidence they need to return to work, is surely a step in the right direction.