|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2022 23:48:55 GMT
Government ‘must tear up national disability strategy’ after high court defeat By John Pring on 27th January 2022 Category: Activism and Campaigning www.disabilitynewsservice.com/government-must-tear-up-national-disability-strategy-after-high-court-defeat/Disabled campaigners have called on the government to tear up its “fundamentally broken” National Disability Strategy, after the high court ruled that the much-criticised document was unlawful. The high court found that a botched consultation had made it “impossible” for disabled people to “shape” the content of the strategy. Mr Justice Griffiths found this week (PDF) that the consultation, launched early last year through a national survey, was unlawful because the thousands of disabled people who took part were not given enough information about the government’s proposed strategy to allow them “intelligent consideration and response”. The government had argued that the survey was just an information-gathering exercise, but the court had heard how the Disability Unit’s own website listed the survey at the time as an “Open Consultation”, while it was hosted on the unit’s “Consultation Hub”, with the promise that responses would inform the strategy’s development. The court also found that the survey’s multiple-choice format, and the word limit on the small number of questions that allowed free-form responses, “did not allow for a proper response even to the issues canvassed in the Survey”. Because the court has found that the consultation was unlawful, so is the strategy, which was published last July. It is not yet clear what action the government will take following the ruling, although a spokesperson said it was considering its next steps. Doug Paulley (pictured, above, left), one of the four disabled campaigners who took the judicial review* against work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey, said it was “entirely clear” that the consultation had not been “fit for purpose”. He called on the government to withdraw its “fundamentally broken” national strategy and “start afresh with disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) and disabled people at the heart of it, as they always should have done”. He said: “What I would hope for is they would actually go to DPOs and disabled people and do a proper consultation and focus on what disabled people actually want, which is enforceable and genuine rights. “What I think they will actually do is appeal the judgement.” But he said the judgement meant there was “a very clear ruling that the strategy is now unlawful and will remain so until something is done”. One of the four claimants, disabled activist Miriam Binder (pictured, above, right), died last month, and her family said today (Thursday) that they were “incredibly proud” of the part she had played in the legal victory. Her daughters said in a statement: “It is a bittersweet moment for us as a family that our mum is not here to see this, but mum didn’t do this for just herself, she took on this fight for every disabled person in the UK. “We are so incredibly proud of her and her courage. “She has always been a stalwart campaigner for justice, particularly for disability rights and equality. “We are elated with the judgement and hope this makes a difference to the lives of those living with a disability. “This is an extremely fitting bequest and we take comfort in the knowledge that she made a difference.” In-depth analysis of the government’s strategy by Disability News Service after it was published last summer showed it had been padded out with scores of pledges to “discuss” or “consider” further action, to commission lengthy research, and to carry out reviews of existing policies. At the time, Inclusion London called it “a cynical re-packaging of current polices and current budgets”, while the DPO Forum England, a network of many of the country’s leading DPOs, said it had ignored bold action on increasing benefit levels, supporting inclusive education, combating the disability employment gap, increasing accessible housing, and reforming social care. This week, Inclusion London said it was “shocking” that disabled people “have to go to court to force the government to properly and meaningfully engage with us on a central disability strategy which is meant to improve our lives”. Svetlana Kotova, Inclusion London’s director of campaigns and justice, said the “damning” ruling was a “wakeup call to the government” that it can “no longer get away with [its] unlawful, dismissive, patronising and discriminatory approach to engaging with disabled people and DPOs”. Kamran Mallick, chief executive of Disability Rights UK, said that a “disability strategy formulated without deep listening to the voices of disabled people is doomed to failure. “The government must now go back and do what it should have done the first time round: dedicate time and resources to enable disabled people to speak freely and fully on our lived experience, demonstrate we have been fully heard, and share draft strategy proposals with us for discussion and comment.” Another of the four claimants, Jean Eveleigh, said: “If the secretary of state genuinely wishes to place disabled people’s lived experiences at the heart of the strategy, then she must do so through proper and lawful consultation that provides a meaningful opportunity for disabled people and their organisations to contribute their views.” The fourth claimant, Victoria Hon, added: “For too long disabled individuals have been infantilised and our views ignored. “This judgment sends a clear message that the government cannot claim to consult with disabled people if in practice we are not given the proper opportunity to share our views. “It is time the government listened and learned from what disabled people have to say about our own experiences and lives.” Vicky Foxcroft, Labour’s shadow minister for disabled people, said: “Once again, the government has been forced into a humiliating defeat, even though disabled people raised their concerns numerous times. “They shouldn’t have had to be taken to court for them to have corrected the failings from their shoddy consultation process. “Ministers need to urgently clarify how they will correct these failings and ensure disabled people are consulted properly.” A government spokesperson said: “We engaged with disabled people, disabled people’s organisations, carers and others as part of the National Disability Strategy. “We remain committed to improving the everyday lives of disabled people, and the National Disability Strategy has already made significant inroads.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2022 15:09:44 GMT
"Today is national holocaust remembrance day which was started by the UN. As well as the Jewish genocide it covers Cambodia, Rwanda and Darfur. What isn't covered is the genocide of around 250,000 disabled, especially the mad. The gas chambers were built for this purpose first, before they were moved East for the Jews. The mad were killed as the consequence of the theory of degeneracy. The theoretician's of degeneracy were psychiatrists like Maudsley, like Kraepelin. The people who implemented the policy didn't do it because they were Nazis, they did it for the good of the human race (sic). It seems to me that on national holocaust remembrance day these victims should also be in our thoughts. ps I asked an academic who specialises in holocaust studies why the disabled and mentally ill were never included. Her answer was that: 1. there was a scale issue. 2. that it would make it a less Jewish and more complicated issue diffusing the focus and 3. because the Jews had better PR."
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2022 19:14:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 26, 2022 22:59:49 GMT
UN to hear how disabled people feel ‘expendable’ after rights regression since 2017 By John Pring on 24th March 2022 Category: Human Rights www.disabilitynewsservice.com/un-to-hear-how-disabled-people-feel-expendable-after-rights-regression-since-2017/There has been “continued regression” in disabled people’s rights in the five years since a UN committee told the UK government that its cuts and reforms had caused a “human catastrophe”, according to a new report by disabled people’s organisations (DPOs). DPOs across England spent six months collecting evidence for the “shadow report” on how the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) is being implemented by the UK government. Of more than 350 people who responded to an online survey, 91 per cent agreed there had been continued regression to disabled people’s rights under the convention since 2017, with just one per cent disagreeing. The report, which focuses on England, also says that the UK government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic discriminated against disabled people and “violated our equal right to life”. It warns that disability equality and human rights approaches towards disability have been “further undermined” since 2017, and that the government has been carrying out “insufficient monitoring and promotion” of the convention. Although it says the UK government has adopted “progressive initiatives” in some areas, it says it has failed to address the “fundamental issues” affecting disabled people’s lives. The work on the report was led by Inclusion London, which said that many of those who responded to its call for evidence said their experiences during the pandemic had left them feeling that society viewed their lives as “expendable” or as “collateral damage”. One said: “Being a disabled person feels dangerous on a daily basis. I feel expendable.” Among the concerns raised, the report says that real terms spending on social care by local authorities was £700 million below its 2010-11 level, and it points to research that found that cuts to social care funding caused nearly 24,000 extra deaths in the five years from 2010. It concludes that charging for social care is having “an increasingly detrimental impact” on the incomes of disabled people, “forcing some to go without support while others are trapped in debt”. And, it says, the government has missed successive targets for de-institutionalisation, while increasing numbers of patients with learning difficulties are being physically restrained in mental health units, “despite ministers telling NHS trusts to use such techniques less often”. Of those surveyed, 84 per cent agreed that institutionalisation of disabled people had been a growing problem since 2017, with just five per cent disagreeing, The report also raises significant concerns about the rise in foodbank use and homelessness among disabled people, the impact of the pandemic on disability poverty, continuing concerns about the disability benefit assessment system, and the continuing refusal of the Department for Work and Pensions to order an inquiry into deaths linked to its failings. It also points to “severe and deliberate” regression in disabled people’s right to inclusive education. The report devotes significant space to the “disproportionate” impact on disabled people of the government’s failure to prepare adequately for the pandemic. It highlights how disabled people were much more likely to die from COVID-19, even after taking into account factors such as age, underlying health conditions, poverty and whether they lived in a care home. The report says: “The pandemic starkly highlighted attitudes towards [disabled people] whereby our lives are held to have less value than other people’s. “Almost no attention has been paid to the discrimination that appears to have led to disabled people dying in disproportionate numbers from COVID-19.” The findings will be submitted to the UN’s committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, along with parallel reports by DPOs in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (see separate story), and a UK-wide report. The UN committee will use the shadow reports – and other evidence – to help it draw up a list of questions to put to the UK government, and the three devolved governments, which will have a year to respond in writing, before being examined by the committee. Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice at Inclusion London, said: “There has been a marked absence of public and political debate concerning the disproportionate deaths of Deaf and disabled people which have been written off as linked to underlying health conditions. “The pervasive attitude is that our deaths don’t count the same as those of non-disabled people – that the deaths of so-called fit and healthy people are the real tragedy.” She added: “Our research shows discrimination persists in many areas of our lives and there are no signs that things will change in the future.” Kamran Mallick, chief executive of Disability Rights UK, which was on the shadow report’s steering group, said: “The findings of this report highlight just how important it is that the independent inquiry into the government’s handling of the pandemic fully investigates the impact on Deaf and disabled people. “We need to know how our needs were factored into key political decisions, including when and how to lockdown, what monitoring went on into the impacts of those decisions and what if any emergency planning was in place pre-pandemic. “Lessons can only be learned for the future through an inquiry that is based on an accurate understanding of who Deaf and disabled people are and what our needs are.”
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 19:22:03 GMT
Standard Practice - Essex mental health services inquiry probes 1,500 deaths By Matt Precey & Nikki Fox BBC Look East www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-60865519A public inquiry has learned of the deaths of 1,500 people who were in the care of Essex mental health services over a 21-year period. They were either inpatients or individuals who died within three months of being discharged. Dr Geraldine Strathdee, chairwoman of the inquiry, said "at this stage we only know the causes of death in 40% of those people". She appealed for more people to come forward. The inquiry began taking evidence from the public in December and is ongoing. So far it has heard from 14 families of those who have died, as well as other individuals. Among the recurring themes have been concerns over patients' physical, mental and sexual safety while on wards, said Dr Strathdee. She added a lack of basic information being provided to patients and their loved ones and "major differences in the quality of care" were also things she had repeatedly heard. She said they had "limited information" about the deaths and they were "seeking further information rapidly so that we understand which of those 1,500 people will need further investigation".
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 7, 2022 13:54:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 9, 2022 18:56:20 GMT
Eugenics and American social history, 1880-1950 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2698847/Abstract Eugenics, the attempt to improve the human species socially through better breeding was a widespread and popular movement in the United States and Europe between 1910 and 1940. Eugenics was an attempt to use science (the newly discovered Mendelian laws of heredity) to solve social problems (crime, alcoholism, prostitution, rebelliousness), using trained experts. Eugenics gained much support from progressive reform thinkers, who sought to plan social development using expert knowledge in both the social and natural sciences. In eugenics, progressive reformers saw the opportunity to attack social problems efficiently by treating the cause (bad heredity) rather than the effect. Much of the impetus for social and economic reform came from class conflict in the period 1880-1930, resulting from industrialization, unemployment, working conditions, periodic depressions, and unionization. In response, the industrialist class adopted firmer measures of economic control (abandonment of laissez-faire principles), the principles of government regulation (interstate commerce, labor), and the cult of industrial efficiency. Eugenics was only one aspect of progressive reform, but as a scientific claim to explain the cause of social problems, it was a particularly powerful weapon in the arsenal of class conflict at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 30, 2022 0:35:40 GMT
‘Life Unworthy of Life’ THE LESSONS OF T4 Stephen Unwin 28 December 2021 bylinetimes.com/2021/12/28/life-unworthy-of-life-the-lessons-of-t4/Stephen Unwin delves deep into the intellectual traditions and cultural mindset that produced the Nazis’ ‘wild euthanasia’ of people with disabilities, and finds we have not yet put those prejudices to rest Although eugenics was created in London and enthusiastically nurtured in America and Scandinavia, it was in Nazi Germany that it found its most appalling realisation. Indeed, the persecution, forced sterilisation and subsequent murder of as many as 275,000 “useless eaters” is one of the most overlooked chapters in the whole ghastly history of the Third Reich. The Germans were much influenced by the American eugenicists, and the Rockefeller Foundation bankrolled the new Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin (where Josef Mengele worked before being transferred to Auschwitz). C. M. Goethe, the wealthy leader of the California Genetics movement, was delighted to learn that, within a year of Hitler coming to power, 5,000 Germans a month were being forcibly sterilised, and praised a fellow eugenicist for helping to shape “the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making programme”. Similarly, the virulent American eugenicist, Harry H. Laughlin (himself epileptic), boasted that his Model Sterilisation Law had been adopted by the Nazis in their 1935 Racial Hygiene Law, while one American asylum director expressed concern that “the Germans are beating us at our own game”. It was German academics, however, who really paved the way. In 1920, Karl Binding, a senior academic lawyer, and Alfred Hoche, a professor of medicine, had produced the bluntly titled polemic Permission for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life. In it, Binding declared that, in addition to the terminally ill and the seriously wounded, all “incurable idiots” should be killed. Such people, he insisted, are “absolutely pointless” and impose “a terrible heavy burden upon their relatives and society as a whole and their death would not create even the smallest gap – except perhaps in the feelings of their mothers or loyal nurses”. Hoche, meanwhile, insisted that they were “human ballast” without any “capacity for suffering” on “an intellectual level, which we only encounter way down in the animal kingdom”. To show pity was illogical, he argued, “for where there [is] no suffering, there can be no pity”. Above all, he emphasised the cost of looking after them, contrasting “the sacrifice of the dearest human good” with “the enormous care for existences that not only are devoid of value but even ought to be valued negatively”. He also expressed a ghoulish interest in the research that such slaughter would allow. Although demands in Weimar Germany for such drastic action were relatively rare, more common was support for sterilisation. Thus, in late 1932, the Prussian Health Council approved “limited medically supervised and voluntary sterilisation designed to stop the breeding of genetic defectives”, and the German Parliament permitted the same, just weeks before Hitler became Chancellor. In 1933, the new National Socialist Government passed the Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases, which sanctioned the compulsory sterilisation of people suffering from nine supposedly heritable conditions: such action (the ‘Hitler cut’) was a sacrifice made by the “defective” for the good of all. Doctors were ordered to report all such cases and could be fined for failing to do so. As a result, as many as 400,000 adults (1% of people of child-rearing age) were sterilised, many forcibly, often with disastrous health consequences.
|
|
|
Post by flyingcarpet46 on May 30, 2022 7:24:28 GMT
‘Life Unworthy of Life’ THE LESSONS OF T4 Stephen Unwin 28 December 2021 bylinetimes.com/2021/12/28/life-unworthy-of-life-the-lessons-of-t4/Stephen Unwin delves deep into the intellectual traditions and cultural mindset that produced the Nazis’ ‘wild euthanasia’ of people with disabilities, and finds we have not yet put those prejudices to rest Although eugenics was created in London and enthusiastically nurtured in America and Scandinavia, it was in Nazi Germany that it found its most appalling realisation. Indeed, the persecution, forced sterilisation and subsequent murder of as many as 275,000 “useless eaters” is one of the most overlooked chapters in the whole ghastly history of the Third Reich. The Germans were much influenced by the American eugenicists, and the Rockefeller Foundation bankrolled the new Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin (where Josef Mengele worked before being transferred to Auschwitz). C. M. Goethe, the wealthy leader of the California Genetics movement, was delighted to learn that, within a year of Hitler coming to power, 5,000 Germans a month were being forcibly sterilised, and praised a fellow eugenicist for helping to shape “the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making programme”. Similarly, the virulent American eugenicist, Harry H. Laughlin (himself epileptic), boasted that his Model Sterilisation Law had been adopted by the Nazis in their 1935 Racial Hygiene Law, while one American asylum director expressed concern that “the Germans are beating us at our own game”. It was German academics, however, who really paved the way. In 1920, Karl Binding, a senior academic lawyer, and Alfred Hoche, a professor of medicine, had produced the bluntly titled polemic Permission for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life. In it, Binding declared that, in addition to the terminally ill and the seriously wounded, all “incurable idiots” should be killed. Such people, he insisted, are “absolutely pointless” and impose “a terrible heavy burden upon their relatives and society as a whole and their death would not create even the smallest gap – except perhaps in the feelings of their mothers or loyal nurses”. Hoche, meanwhile, insisted that they were “human ballast” without any “capacity for suffering” on “an intellectual level, which we only encounter way down in the animal kingdom”. To show pity was illogical, he argued, “for where there [is] no suffering, there can be no pity”. Above all, he emphasised the cost of looking after them, contrasting “the sacrifice of the dearest human good” with “the enormous care for existences that not only are devoid of value but even ought to be valued negatively”. He also expressed a ghoulish interest in the research that such slaughter would allow. Although demands in Weimar Germany for such drastic action were relatively rare, more common was support for sterilisation. Thus, in late 1932, the Prussian Health Council approved “limited medically supervised and voluntary sterilisation designed to stop the breeding of genetic defectives”, and the German Parliament permitted the same, just weeks before Hitler became Chancellor. In 1933, the new National Socialist Government passed the Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases, which sanctioned the compulsory sterilisation of people suffering from nine supposedly heritable conditions: such action (the ‘Hitler cut’) was a sacrifice made by the “defective” for the good of all. Doctors were ordered to report all such cases and could be fined for failing to do so. As a result, as many as 400,000 adults (1% of people of child-rearing age) were sterilised, many forcibly, often with disastrous health consequences.
|
|
|
Post by flyingcarpet46 on May 30, 2022 7:24:45 GMT
‘Life Unworthy of Life’ THE LESSONS OF T4 Stephen Unwin 28 December 2021 bylinetimes.com/2021/12/28/life-unworthy-of-life-the-lessons-of-t4/Stephen Unwin delves deep into the intellectual traditions and cultural mindset that produced the Nazis’ ‘wild euthanasia’ of people with disabilities, and finds we have not yet put those prejudices to rest Although eugenics was created in London and enthusiastically nurtured in America and Scandinavia, it was in Nazi Germany that it found its most appalling realisation. Indeed, the persecution, forced sterilisation and subsequent murder of as many as 275,000 “useless eaters” is one of the most overlooked chapters in the whole ghastly history of the Third Reich. The Germans were much influenced by the American eugenicists, and the Rockefeller Foundation bankrolled the new Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin (where Josef Mengele worked before being transferred to Auschwitz). C. M. Goethe, the wealthy leader of the California Genetics movement, was delighted to learn that, within a year of Hitler coming to power, 5,000 Germans a month were being forcibly sterilised, and praised a fellow eugenicist for helping to shape “the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making programme”. Similarly, the virulent American eugenicist, Harry H. Laughlin (himself epileptic), boasted that his Model Sterilisation Law had been adopted by the Nazis in their 1935 Racial Hygiene Law, while one American asylum director expressed concern that “the Germans are beating us at our own game”. It was German academics, however, who really paved the way. In 1920, Karl Binding, a senior academic lawyer, and Alfred Hoche, a professor of medicine, had produced the bluntly titled polemic Permission for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life. In it, Binding declared that, in addition to the terminally ill and the seriously wounded, all “incurable idiots” should be killed. Such people, he insisted, are “absolutely pointless” and impose “a terrible heavy burden upon their relatives and society as a whole and their death would not create even the smallest gap – except perhaps in the feelings of their mothers or loyal nurses”. Hoche, meanwhile, insisted that they were “human ballast” without any “capacity for suffering” on “an intellectual level, which we only encounter way down in the animal kingdom”. To show pity was illogical, he argued, “for where there [is] no suffering, there can be no pity”. Above all, he emphasised the cost of looking after them, contrasting “the sacrifice of the dearest human good” with “the enormous care for existences that not only are devoid of value but even ought to be valued negatively”. He also expressed a ghoulish interest in the research that such slaughter would allow. Although demands in Weimar Germany for such drastic action were relatively rare, more common was support for sterilisation. Thus, in late 1932, the Prussian Health Council approved “limited medically supervised and voluntary sterilisation designed to stop the breeding of genetic defectives”, and the German Parliament permitted the same, just weeks before Hitler became Chancellor. In 1933, the new National Socialist Government passed the Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases, which sanctioned the compulsory sterilisation of people suffering from nine supposedly heritable conditions: such action (the ‘Hitler cut’) was a sacrifice made by the “defective” for the good of all. Doctors were ordered to report all such cases and could be fined for failing to do so. As a result, as many as 400,000 adults (1% of people of child-rearing age) were sterilised, many forcibly, often with disastrous health consequences.
|
|
|
Post by flyingcarpet46 on May 30, 2022 7:29:33 GMT
‘Life Unworthy of Life’ THE LESSONS OF T4 Stephen Unwin 28 December 2021 bylinetimes.com/2021/12/28/life-unworthy-of-life-the-lessons-of-t4/Stephen Unwin delves deep into the intellectual traditions and cultural mindset that produced the Nazis’ ‘wild euthanasia’ of people with disabilities, and finds we have not yet put those prejudices to rest Although eugenics was created in London and enthusiastically nurtured in America and Scandinavia, it was in Nazi Germany that it found its most appalling realisation. Indeed, the persecution, forced sterilisation and subsequent murder of as many as 275,000 “useless eaters” is one of the most overlooked chapters in the whole ghastly history of the Third Reich. The Germans were much influenced by the American eugenicists, and the Rockefeller Foundation bankrolled the new Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin (where Josef Mengele worked before being transferred to Auschwitz). C. M. Goethe, the wealthy leader of the California Genetics movement, was delighted to learn that, within a year of Hitler coming to power, 5,000 Germans a month were being forcibly sterilised, and praised a fellow eugenicist for helping to shape “the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making programme”. Similarly, the virulent American eugenicist, Harry H. Laughlin (himself epileptic), boasted that his Model Sterilisation Law had been adopted by the Nazis in their 1935 Racial Hygiene Law, while one American asylum director expressed concern that “the Germans are beating us at our own game”. It was German academics, however, who really paved the way. In 1920, Karl Binding, a senior academic lawyer, and Alfred Hoche, a professor of medicine, had produced the bluntly titled polemic Permission for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life. In it, Binding declared that, in addition to the terminally ill and the seriously wounded, all “incurable idiots” should be killed. Such people, he insisted, are “absolutely pointless” and impose “a terrible heavy burden upon their relatives and society as a whole and their death would not create even the smallest gap – except perhaps in the feelings of their mothers or loyal nurses”. Hoche, meanwhile, insisted that they were “human ballast” without any “capacity for suffering” on “an intellectual level, which we only encounter way down in the animal kingdom”. To show pity was illogical, he argued, “for where there [is] no suffering, there can be no pity”. Above all, he emphasised the cost of looking after them, contrasting “the sacrifice of the dearest human good” with “the enormous care for existences that not only are devoid of value but even ought to be valued negatively”. He also expressed a ghoulish interest in the research that such slaughter would allow. Although demands in Weimar Germany for such drastic action were relatively rare, more common was support for sterilisation. Thus, in late 1932, the Prussian Health Council approved “limited medically supervised and voluntary sterilisation designed to stop the breeding of genetic defectives”, and the German Parliament permitted the same, just weeks before Hitler became Chancellor. In 1933, the new National Socialist Government passed the Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases, which sanctioned the compulsory sterilisation of people suffering from nine supposedly heritable conditions: such action (the ‘Hitler cut’) was a sacrifice made by the “defective” for the good of all. Doctors were ordered to report all such cases and could be fined for failing to do so. As a result, as many as 400,000 adults (1% of people of child-rearing age) were sterilised, many forcibly, often with disastrous health consequences.
|
|
|
Post by flyingcarpet46 on May 30, 2022 7:43:01 GMT
Oops. Seemed I clicked on Quote too many times.
V disturbing to be reminded of what has been said before. Attitudes just beneath the surface when it comes to shortages eg food, utilities ... or threats like the recent covid pandemic. A sense that if elderly or disabled people die as result it doedn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 19, 2022 10:16:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 7, 2022 23:54:09 GMT
DWP dismisses 300 pages of evidence linking its actions with countless deaths By John Pring on 7th July 2022 Category: Benefits and Poverty www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-dismisses-300-pages-of-evidence-linking-its-actions-with-countless-deaths/The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has dismissed new research that for the first time brings together more than 30 years of evidence that links its systemic failings with the deaths of countless disabled claimants of benefits. The Deaths by Welfare timeline is based on more than a decade of investigations by disabled people’s grassroots groups, journalists, academics and other organisations and campaigners, and has taken more than a year to put together. The evidence includes government reports, academic research, disabled people’s activism, letters to DWP from coroners, media reports of deaths linked to DWP’s failings, freedom of information responses and political speeches. It shows how years of warning signs of the harm to come were ignored, as well as demonstrating systemic negligence by DWP, a culture of cover-up and denial, and a refusal to accept that the department has a duty of care to those disabled people claiming support through the social security system. The timeline – currently more than 300 pages long – shows how DWP continues to pose a serious and continuing risk to the lives of disabled people who pass through its disability assessment systems. But it also shows how the campaigning and leadership of disabled people and bereaved families has been vital to resistance. In an exclusive report for the Mirror this week, DNS editor John Pring revealed how the timeline shows DWP was alerted more than 40 times to life-threatening systemic flaws in DWP’s disability benefits systems over the past 30 years. Its failure to act on those warnings can be linked to hundreds – maybe even thousands – of suicides and other deaths of disabled people. Following the Mirror story, the timeline was mentioned in the House of Commons by Labour’s Debbie Abrahams, who has led parliamentary efforts to push for a public inquiry into benefit-related deaths. She said the timeline provides “even more evidence of the impact of the so-called reforms on premature deaths and suicides”. She later mentioned the case of David Clapson, who had diabetes and died in July 2013 as a result of an acute lack of insulin, three weeks after having his jobseeker’s allowance sanctioned. Because he had no money, he couldn’t afford to pay for electricity that would have kept the fridge where he kept his insulin working, and he had also run out of food. The timeline is part of the Deaths by Welfare project, headed by Dr China Mills and supported by Healing Justice Ldn, which works with marginalised and oppressed communities. Mills has led the work on the timeline alongside Pring, with key input from disabled activist Rick Burgess, disabled activist Ellen Clifford, author of The War On Disabled People, welfare rights expert and researcher Nick Dilworth, and disabled artist-activist Dolly Sen. It is hoped the timeline will provide a solid database of evidence for researchers, activists and journalists to push for an inquiry. It is being released in a draft format so disabled people and allies can provide feedback and suggest any gaps over the next two months, before a final version is published later this year. Clifford said the timeline was “an enormously important piece of work”. She said: “Welfare reform has destroyed lives and caused avoidable harm on such a scale the United Nations made a finding of grave and systematic violations of disabled people’s rights. “At the most extreme end this has meant the loss of life. We will probably never know the true number. “The culture of dehumanisation and hostility fostered within the Department for Work and Pensions to justify the government’s conscious cruelty has meant a complete lack of accountability or remorse. “The timeline represents an important step in the continuing battle for justice for the victims of welfare reform. “For those of us still living and challenging welfare reform the timeline will be an immensely useful reference point when we need to remember what happened when. “From a historical perspective and for those coming to the issue new, the timeline exposes the deliberate steps involved in the conscious strategy of dismantling the welfare state in favour of privatisation, business and an economic agenda that puts profit before people. “It also includes and is testament to key points relevant to the resistance that disabled people and our allies mounted, using all the determination, resourcefulness and collective strength they could.” Mills said: “In making the timeline we traversed mountains of evidence, some almost prophetic in its warning of the harm to come. “What started for me as an investigation into the many deaths of people claiming benefits, is also a story alive with resistance – of disabled people joining forces with bereaved families, bearing witness to welfare reform’s deadly impact, and collectively envisioning justice. “We may never know the names of all of those who have died – the lives lived and lost. “But as part of the Deaths by Welfare project, we’re making this evidence available and seeking people’s feedback, to remember those who have died and to reimagine welfare justice.” Asked if it would examine the timeline, whether it viewed the work as useful, and whether it accepted that more than 30 years of evidence showed links between social security policy and the deaths of claimants, a DWP spokesperson said in a statement: “These are tragic, complex cases and our sincere condolences remain with the families. “We support millions of people each year and in the vast majority of cases we deliver a supportive and compassionate service. “We continually improve our services and have new teams to focus on our most vulnerable customers, ensuring we make the right decisions and people get support as quickly as possible.”
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 5, 2022 8:18:12 GMT
|
|