Editorial: Cancer burden heavy enough

Hundreds of cancer patients are being placed on the Job Seeker Hardship, making it harder to gain financial support for their treatment. Photo / iStock

I am all for the new benefit system which requires those receiving the dole to be actively looking for work, but having cancer patients on much the same system seems ridiculous.

The new Job Seeker benefit requires those on it to prove they are trying to find work by attending job seminars and interviews.

That is as it should be.

If people are fit for work (any type of work), they should not be able to live on the dole for years and years. They need to prove they are doing all they can to find a job.

This week a cancer patient, who did not want to be identified, told Radio New Zealand she had to pay for a medical certificate every month to prove she was not fit to work.

The Cancer Society got behind her cause saying it was "ludicrous". I agree.

Surely dealing with the shock of finding out you have cancer and then going through the gruelling treatment is bad enough.

They should not have to worry about having to send in countless letters and fill out numerous documents just to make sure they have some money coming in, while they are battling the disease.

Surely an initial letter from your doctor or specialist outlining your condition and treatment should be enough to secure your benefit for the duration of treatment.

In saying that, I know we can't just approve patients' benefits and forget about them.

Measures do need to be in place to ensure people don't rip off the system by continuing to claim the benefit even once their treatment is finished and they are fit to work again.

Maybe they should be required to provide a new medical certificate every four months or even six months, but not every month.

The Cancer Society pointed out many cancer patients had never been on a benefit before. Most of those people genuinely need help at what is likely to be one of the toughest points in their lives.

Surely we should afford them some measure of trust.

Maybe the ministry should take into account their previous history with the organisation as a way to determine who might need closer monitoring.