Equality Act 2010 - is KC a disability?

[Anne Klepacz]

The criteria for being registered as partially sighted are in this link
http://www.rnib.org.uk/livingwithsightl ... teria.aspx
which is in the pages about registration that I gave in an earlier post.
But as I also said earlier, you don't have to be registered to have protection under the Equality Act provided you can prove you have a disability as defined in the act (long-term, significant effect on everyday activities etc). The problem is, the terms in that definition aren't further defined - what counts as long term, what counts as significant? So getting help from one of the charities that have professional employment and legal advisers can help to navigate these minefields. As can getting written evidence from ophthalmologists and optometrists.
Anne

[Steven Williams]

Anne you have not objectively answered my question.

Another tough key question - so why do people diagnosed with Cancer, HIV, and MS get classified as disabled and not keratoconics?

I suspect its most likely due to a high level of representation/campaigning/lobbying and support from their registered charities.

[Grant]

Not sure why you're getting fixated on the word objective but I'll try to help.

Schedule 1 Para 5(3) of the Equality Act 2010 states

this provision does not apply to sight impairments to the extent that they are capable of correction by spectacles or contact lenses. In other words, the only effects on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities which are to be considered are those which remain when spectacles or contact lenses are used (or would remain if they were used). This does not include the use of devices to correct sight which are not spectacles or contact lenses

The Equality Act 2010 guidelines state that

Regulations provide for a person who is certified as blind, severely sight impaired, sight impaired or partially sighted by a consultant ophthalmologist to be deemed to have a disability

(Further Googling suggests that the first two terms are synonymous as are the last two)

The guidance also points to the Blind and Partially Sighted Persons) Regulations 2003 which defines the relevant guidance for being certified as the LASSL(90) Form BD8, which has been superseded by the CVI 2007 form, the guidance for which includes the objective measures required for certification which can be found here

If that's too long, the summary is "what Anne said".

With regard to your question of why are cancer, HIV and MS are explicitly defined as disabilities in the Act then your assumption is probably correct. The Hansard entries related to the reading of the Equality Bill show that groups related to those conditions were called to give evidence.

Personally, the Snellen definition when wearing glasses/lenses seems like a sensible and pragmatic definition of when sight loss becomes a disability.

[munster]

The Snellen test is a load of b****cks for KC.

Its just a snap shot of your sight there and then. Even my lens fitter agrees, that in the real world, theres many variables that affect KC sight; lighting, contrast, environmental factors, humidity, eye dryness and wear time etc.

I have already demonstrated how KC, even with corrected vision still affects my daily life and work.

Now, after Steve posted a thread on the police inspector that was awarded £280k compensation for disability discrimination relating to KC, I think we're covered.

[Steven Williams]

Personally, the Snellen definition when wearing glasses/lenses seems like a sensible and pragmatic definition of when sight loss becomes a disability.

Thanks for the information/references Grant. I'm focused on the objective measure because then we all know were the partial sight threshold stands. Word definitions are subjective and open to interpretation. Does your optom ever point out where that is when you are reading the snellen charts? In the 29 years since I have been diagnosed it as not been pointed out once. Ignorance is bliss!

Regarding your above comment so where do Keratoconics stand then when they cant wear their lenses due to discomfort ( due to dry eye) or the optometrist cannot prescribe a lens that works, or for those who are contact lens intolerant?

You obviously dont fall within that category Grant but if you were and there is a possibility that you may sometime on your life KC journey I wonder what you would have to say here then.

As far as my KC journey is concerned I became disadvantaged and in my opinion disabled due to KC when wearing glasses to bring my level of vision up to driving level standard no longer worked. That was over 15 years ago and from that time the optometrists have never found me a solution that works, incurring me in vast amounts of time visiting the eye hospital and expense with no benefit,leaving me in a very vulnerable position regarding work performance in a career which due to the evolution of computers and communication dominated by e mails there have been vast increases on the demands on my visual acuity.

The kerataconic who has progressed beyond glasses but not yet reached the partial sight level is in my opinion in a very vulnerable position with no protection from discrimination from employers in a world of work which now treats people at work purely as human resources (slaves)

[Grant]

I actually agree that under the subjective criteria of the 2010 Act then if your KC with correction is still bad enough to have a significant impact on your life then you are by definition disabled.

But it doesn't make sense to say KC should automatically be considered a disability - I'm 6/60 uncorrected in both eyes but can achieve 6/6 or better with piggybacks. As I type this I've had them in for 20 hours and there's no way I could do 6/6 now, the vision isn't great due to mucus and halos. Doesn't make me disabled though.

[munster]

Thats the problem we have. Some people can cope and say they are not disadvantaged. Then theres the others who do have problems even when corrected. As long as we have this divide then the government and other bodies will always side with the non disadvantaged.

What people need to start realising is that its a progressive condition. While some people might be ok, and not feel to be classed as a disability. There maybe a time you'll progress so bad that you do become classed as a disability and require the categorisation we're fighting for. So by not accepting this fact, and just because your current state is fine. Your denying your future (maybe) and others who are in a much worse state than yourself.

All im saying is that we're all treated as one, and under the same umbrella. I'm not having a go at those who are great with it, nor insulting anyone. I'm just trying to get people to see this as a whole, from both sides of the spectrum.

[Steven Williams]

Thats the problem we have. Some people can cope and say they are not disadvantaged. Then theres the others who do have problems even when corrected. As long as we have this divide then the government and other bodies will always side with the non disadvantaged.

What people need to start realising is that its a progressive condition. While some people might be ok, and not feel to be classed as a disability. There maybe a time you'll progress so bad that you do become classed as a disability and require the categorisation we're fighting for. So by not accepting this fact, and just because your current state is fine. Your denying your future (maybe) and others who are in a much worse state than yourself.

All im saying is that we're all treated as one, and under the same umbrella. I'm not having a go at those who are great with it, nor insulting anyone. I'm just trying to get people to see this as a whole, from both sides of the spectrum

You've nailed it there Munster. Well done

I suspect that due to a united front approach from their representative charities, thats why cancer, HIV, and MS are a recognised disability upon diagnosis in the Equality Act.

So if you are not partially sighted with your contacts in then please explain why a person who uses a wheelchair to get the mobility they need is classified as disabled then.

As it stands at present the fact is as I have experienced the keratoconic at work is extremely vulnerable in the current working environment where workers are treated by employers purely as human resources.

[Grant]

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uplo ... ce_may.pdf is another good read. 60 pages of detailed guidance as to why substantive, long term, probability, day-to-day activities are not simple binary positions but occupy a spectrum that mean two people who have the same condition do not both have to be disabled or non-disabled.

Now I fully agree that we should still campaign to improve the profile, treatment and understanding of KC but I fail to see how a blanket acceptance of KC as a disability whatever the impact is appropriate. To be honest, I'm not convinced that cancer is automatically a disability either.

To be clear, I do think some KC sufferers are disabled and it's good that the EA 2010 Act recognises them as such.

[space_cadet]

Thanks @Grant for posting those links, I was going to post them myself earlier today but baby space_cadet decided to unplug my laptop on her crawling travels n I ran out of power before I could submit.

It is perhaps holding in mind the World Health Organisations explanation on "disability" and that being "not just a health problem. It is a complex phenomenon, reflecting the interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she live" so in turn does society negativly impact on those of us with KC to the extent that our ability to function is significantly impaired when compared to someone who isn't battling with the same impairement.

Does society help or hinder?

Does society put barriers in the way?

Does society have a perception on disability n when you become the square peg in a round hole society is unsure on what to do to help you fit?

Who n what are society?

n now I am rambling so I will shut up for now , n go take out my contact lens as I am off out with friends x