Steve Donnison
Freelance welfare benefits trainer and writer, Benefits and Work, Wiltshire
Member since 09th Feb 2004
|
RE: dignity
Fri 20-Feb-04 01:04 PM |
CSDLA 0044 2002 Although not finding in favour of this particular claimant, the commissioner took into account space, privacy and personal dignity when considering whether the use of a commode was reasonable. There seems no reason why questions of dignity shouldn't be considered in relation to the use of a bottle as well.
‘I am unable to accept that the tribunal erred in this respect. The appellant has a commode in the bedroom, so there is clearly adequate space for it. It is self-evident that there is sufficient privacy when she uses a commode in her own bedroom. The claimant’s representative draws comparisons with Barlinnie. Emptying a commode after the duration of a normal night’s sleep does not, in my view, equate with emptying a chamber pot after twelve hours confinement where a person is perfectly fit and able to use a toilet if only let out of their cell. There is some regrettable loss of dignity, as there is sadly for all disabled people who have to rely to a degree on help from others. But DLA is a publicly funded benefit. That is a factor to be taken into account in determining what are “reasonable requirements” in the individual circumstances. Using a commode in the privacy of her bedroom does not entail such a loss of dignity as to relieve her of the necessity of using it if it otherwise obviates care needs.’
In this case, as far as I can recall, the claimant slept alone and her son emptied the commode in the morning. It might have been a different matter if the claimant had shared a bedroom with her partner. Would it still be reasonable to accept the loss of dignity entailed in carrying out such private acts as urination or defecation if it was in the presence of one's partner, rather than in privacy of one's own solitary bedroom, if the alternative is simply to be assisted with walking to and from the toilet? I think that the commissioner has opened the door to tribunals having to consider loss of dignity and give reasons why, in any specific case, they consider it is reasonable to expect the claimant to suffer such a loss.
The commissioner also held that a tribunal would have to consider whether it was reasonable to leave a commode unemptied, although once again she did not find that it was necessary for the commode to be emptied immediately in this particular claimant's case. The argument that a bottle should be emptied immediately is probably even harder to make.
‘It does not seem to me obvious, as it apparently did to the Commissioner in CA/168/87, that a commode has to be emptied soon after use. However, different considerations might apply during the day or if faeces are passed. During the night hours, it seems unnecessary that the commode be immediately emptied but rather that such emptying can be left until the start of the next day. In such circumstances, emptying the commode and then cleaning and disinfecting it would be analogous to taking away and washing the dirty linen in the Cockburn case, and therefore not such as to constitute the necessary attention in connection with her bodily functions. However, what is reasonable is for the expertise of a tribunal. Is emptying a commode as necessary for a claimant’s comfort and hygiene as removing soiled or wet bedlinen or night clothes, so that it is sufficiently connected with her bodily function of urinating? If it is reasonable to leave emptying the commode till the next day then, like the laundry, it does not count.’
|