Imagine being unfairly assessed by a doctor you haven’t met. Thanks to the government, disabled people like me don’t have to

Tempted by the lure of filthy lucre, people whose profession calls for them to do no harm appear to have been doing the opposite, an investigation has found

Just when you thought Britain’s vicious assault on disabled people couldn’t get any worse, up pops a story demonstrating that oh yes it can. In fact, we aren’t even close to reaching the bottom of the pit.

Yesterday, The Independent revealed the results of a joint investigation with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It found that the Home Office and local councils had handed millions of pounds of our money over to a private company for the purposes of obtaining medical assessments of people desperately in need of help. They were conducted by doctors who had never spoken to them and then used to deny assistance with housing or to justify putting ill people on planes out of the country.

NowMedical was accused by lawyers and charities of “churning out findings very quickly” and in some cases “diminishing or downplaying” the severity of applicants’ conditions, sometimes going so far as to contradict the opinion of their treating doctors. The people who had, you know, actually seen them.

Reading the report, the parts of me that burn felt hotter – was that a twinge of outrage from the paralysed bits? No, guess not. No superhuman super healing powers. Just everyday common or garden rage.

I might be sick but we sure are governed by sickos.

With the help of a smorgasbord of painkillers, a coffee and five minutes with Words with Friends searching for the right combination of letters to spell out “bastards”, “total”, “complete” and then “utter” on the digital game board, the fires calmed down. It was then that I realised what had struck me about the report.

NowMedical is run by a doctor. Its assessments, based on paper records, were conducted by doctors. People whose profession calls for them to do no harm appear to have been doing that, tempted by the filthy lure of filthy lucre.

This was painful for me because I have an exaggerated respect for the men and women in white coats. It was only by dint of some fairly miraculous doctoring – and surgeoning because I’m aware that surgeons aren’t overly fond of the Dr title – that I’m still here.

The human body is not meant to have a cement truck on top of it. While mine’s now battered and doesn’t work as it used to, they somehow got me through it. And they’re still helping me deal with the (painful) aftermath.

Yet, at the same time, some members of the profession are sat in offices somewhere wielding pens and paper for the purposes of what I consider to be a questionable money-making enterprise. Did someone say “medical ethics”?

I wish I could say I was surprised to read the report, but I’ve come across this sort of thing before. It’s affected me personally.

During the legal proceedings I brought against the insurance company of the driver that hit me, I was in and out of a bunch of doctors’ offices.

Each side gets to pick one, but their reports are supposed to be independent. I was somewhat sceptical at first, but we didn’t find much to object to in the first set of medical reports that the opposition’s choices submitted. That changed when they decided to indulge in a little dirty play by dropping a missive that we were previously unaware was being written just before one of the early hearings.

It covered the type one diabetes I’ve had since I was aged two. And it contained a fairly dire prognosis.

According to the report, I ought, right now, to be having difficulty writing this because I should be going blind as a result of complications brought about by my condition. The implication of it was clear: he’s going to go blind and then die anyway. Don’t give him any cash.

The reality is I’m still knocking around and my sight has actually improved. The eye docs, who are among the good ones, say they now need to see me only every six months rather than three. Score one for tip-top diabetic control.

When I think of that doctor, I think of the sound that Donald Duck makes, not least because the report’s author HAD NEVER SEEN ME. They had produced the document, as with the sick and disabled people assessed by NewMedical, based on written evidence alone and they had drawn unduly negative conclusions from it.

We are, right now, cursed with a very bad government, run by very bad people doing very bad things. Terrible things. But they are only able to achieve their twisted aims through the collusion of people behaving in what I consider to be a morally questionable manner. Private companies, officials, professionals, and others willing to line up and do their bidding for cash.

I think the medical profession needs to take a hard look at itself in the wake of The Independent’s revelations. These things should not be happening. They need to to be stopped before the good names of good doctors are dragged down.

UPDATE (05.03.20) Now Medical provides hundreds of thousands of opinions, the vast majority of which lead to decisions which are not challenged. NowMedical’s assessments have been praised by some judges. Now Medical does not make decisions in relation to individuals; it provides opinions to local authorities and government agencies, who consider those opinions as part of the application as a whole.​

UPDATE (26.03.20) A spokesperson for NowMedical said “Local authorities have the legal responsibility to make decisions on priority need. We simply provide medical opinions to assist the local authority to understand the medical records and make its decision. The law uses the comparators of “vulnerable person” and “ordinary person”. Our reports use this language. Opinions we give to the UK Border Agency consider the statutory test of whether an individual is “unable to leave the UK”. This is not an opinion on whether an individual is “fit to fly” on a specific day. No such language is used in NowMedical reports.

NowMedical’s registered doctors and psychiatrists are not required to physically examine patients in order to provide the opinion that the local authority/UKBA has asked for. This approach is one which the Courts and General Medical Council have accepted to be correct.