Interesting. In that case, I think the general practitioners could just trust that the thorough assessment would do it’s job properly and avoid misdiagnosis. It’s not like the GP is the one providing the diagnosis at all. They’re just putting in the referral.
Furthermore, even when it comes to the actual evaluators, I think that the stance could be that it’s better to incorrectly give people benefits than to incorrectly deny people benefits. By playing benefits police, they are denying services to individuals that really need them just to avoid giving them to those that don’t. Even with the Auti-pass and whatever other benefits come along with the diagnosis, it’s not an amazing life of luxury. The whole thing just strikes me as ridiculous and ultimately rooted in latent power and control issues.
Interesting. In that case, I think the general practitioners could just trust that the thorough assessment would do it’s job properly and avoid misdiagnosis. It’s not like the GP is the one providing the diagnosis at all. They’re just putting in the referral.
Furthermore, even when it comes to the actual evaluators, I think that the stance could be that it’s better to incorrectly give people benefits than to incorrectly deny people benefits. By playing benefits police, they are denying services to individuals that really need them just to avoid giving them to those that don’t. Even with the Auti-pass and whatever other benefits come along with the diagnosis, it’s not an amazing life of luxury. The whole thing just strikes me as ridiculous and ultimately rooted in latent power and control issues.