Unfortunately Centrelink is made of stone when it comes to individual circumstances Sandy, you need to get the forms and lodge your application for DSP in then apply for portability when it comes through.
You're also talking about a situation where your condition will possibly improve with surgery, you would need to make a decision on this as well.
Merely a question but can anyone be made to have an operation?
No, but they can deny a claim for refusing reasonable treatment.
guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/3/6/3/05 Reasonable treatment & compelling reasons for not undertaking reasonable treatment
To be considered reasonable, treatments must be evidence-based with scientific, peer-reviewed research findings to support the use of the treatment for specified medical conditions (i.e. alternative or complementary medicine or treatments without such research evidence are not considered to be reasonable treatment for DSP purposes). Off-label use of medications (i.e. medications used without a prescription or not in accordance with a prescription from a qualified medical practitioner) is also not considered to be reasonable treatment for DSP purposes. The Health Professional Advisory Unit (HPAU) should be consulted where clarification is required.
For DSP purposes, reasonable treatment means:
treatment that is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person at a reasonable cost.
Explanation: It would not be reasonable to expect a person to undergo prohibitively expensive treatment, or treatment that is only available in another country in order to satisfy the permanence criteria.
treatment or procedure that is of a type regularly undertaken or performed.
Explanation: Treatments that are experimental in nature or not yet widely accepted or performed by the general medical community would not be considered reasonable.
treatment that has a high success rate and where substantial improvement can be reliably expected.
Explanation: It would be inappropriate to consider impairment as being temporary solely because the person has not undertaken a treatment that has a poor success rate or that is likely to result in only marginal functional improvement.
treatment that is of a low risk nature.
Explanation: A person may decide against undertaking a certain treatment because it has serious associated risks, for instance major surgical procedure or unavoidable and significant side effects, as may occur with some types of chemotherapy.
If the person has not received or is not able to receive treatment within reasonable timeframes due to issues such as extended waiting lists, evidence should be obtained, for example a document from the relevant hospital or other relevant authority, setting out waiting times for the treatment or the date of the treatment. In cases of long waiting lists, it may be appropriate to consider a condition as stabilised.
Example: A person may be advised by their treating orthopaedic specialist that they require a hip replacement which will significantly improve their level of mobility. However, they are advised by their hospital that the waiting list for the surgery is between 18 to 24 months. Taking into account the recovery and rehabilitation period that may be required after such a surgical procedure, it may be reasonable in this circumstance to consider the person's condition to be stabilised.
Note: Waiting list should be considered when assessing whether a medical condition is stabilised.
It is assumed that a person will generally wish to pursue any reasonable treatment that will improve or alleviate their condition. However, people cannot be expected to undergo treatment that is not reasonable. Treatment will not be considered reasonable if it is not based on the best medical information available.
There may be medical or other compelling and acceptable reasons for not proceeding with reasonable treatment, including where the person:
has religious or cultural beliefs prohibiting treatment (e.g. blood transfusions),
lacks insight or the ability to make appropriate judgements due to their medical condition and are unlikely to comply with treatment (e.g. a person with a severe psychotic illness or dementia).
In those cases where significant functional improvement is not expected or where there is a medical or other compelling reason for a person not to pursue further treatment, it may be reasonable to consider the condition stabilised. The person's views (the subjective test) and all available information on treatment options, risks etc. (the objective test) must be considered by the assessor in such situations.
If a person has not had reasonable treatment due to factors that are not of a compelling nature (e.g. lack of personal motivation that is not due to their medical condition), then their condition would not be considered permanent for DSP purposes, as it is not fully treated and stabilised. Consequently, the Tables must not be applied and the impairment rating must not be assigned. In such situations, the following needs to be evaluated and documented:
what reasonable treatment is feasible and what is the probable outcome of treatment,
what are the risks and side effects of the treatment,
why the treatment is considered reasonable, and
what are the person's reasons for choosing not to undertake this treatment.
