01.12.2012 Views

MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME

MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME

MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

310<br />

In his submission to the All Party Parliamentary Group Inquiry <strong>in</strong>to NHS service provision for people with<br />

<strong>ME</strong> (Co‐Cure ACT 1 st October 2009), Tom K<strong>in</strong>dlon suggests that people with <strong>ME</strong> are be<strong>in</strong>g treated as<br />

second‐class citizens:<br />

“The safety of treatments and <strong>in</strong>terventions is one of the most important issues, if not the most important issue, <strong>in</strong><br />

medic<strong>in</strong>e. With many <strong>in</strong>terventions such as pharmaceutical drugs, there are mechanisms <strong>in</strong> place so that if adverse<br />

reactions occur, this <strong>in</strong>formation is noted and attempts are made to collate the <strong>in</strong>formation…for example, (the) yellow<br />

card scheme, where either prescrib<strong>in</strong>g professionals or patients themselves can report adverse reactions. Unfortunately,<br />

with non‐pharmaceutical <strong>in</strong>terventions (such as CBT/GET), such options are not there. Currently, either the patient<br />

is blamed e.g. ‘they did not do it correctly’ or it is seen as the fault of the <strong>in</strong>dividual practitioner (‘they did not do it<br />

properly’). Given there is no yellow card scheme (for <strong>in</strong>terventions such as CBT/GET), what data do we have? The<br />

<strong>in</strong>formation from patient surveys is the obvious answer. It is important that professionals are told of the abnormal<br />

response to exercise <strong>in</strong> <strong>ME</strong>/CFS. I do not see much evidence that professionals are be<strong>in</strong>g told of the abnormal<br />

response to exercise <strong>in</strong> <strong>ME</strong>/CFS patients. It is also important that patients are given the risks associated with<br />

treatment. This does not seem to be occurr<strong>in</strong>g rout<strong>in</strong>ely at the moment. This means that patients cannot give <strong>in</strong>formed<br />

consent to the treatments they are try<strong>in</strong>g. This suggests that people with <strong>ME</strong>/CFS are be<strong>in</strong>g treated like second‐<br />

class citizens, not worthy of the protections that are offered to other patients. This needs to change”.<br />

It does <strong>in</strong>deed need to change, but it seems that some psychiatrists refuse to see themselves as the rest of the<br />

world sees them, or to see how history repeats itself through their own serious shortcom<strong>in</strong>gs. As Dr Derek<br />

Pheby, Director of the National CFS/<strong>ME</strong> Observatory, po<strong>in</strong>ts out:<br />

“…to assign someone to the wrong category on the basis of a false understand<strong>in</strong>g of the nature of the illness<br />

and its context is an example of a well‐known phenomenon which psychologists term ʹfundamental<br />

attribution error’ “ (InterAction 2009:69:16‐17).<br />

It seems clear that the MRC is <strong>in</strong>volved with a fundamental attribution error that, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Dr Byron<br />

Hyde, is the error of our time (The Complexities of Diagnosis. In: Handbook of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.<br />

Ed: Leonard A Jason et al. John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2003).<br />

Many po<strong>in</strong>ts emerg<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this current document seem to br<strong>in</strong>g not just the Wessely School but also the<br />

MRC itself <strong>in</strong>to disrepute because they demonstrate how hollow is its alleged commitment to scientific<br />

rigour and its alleged requirement for “high quality research” and “the high scientific standard required<br />

for fund<strong>in</strong>g” (letter dated 15 th April 2005 from Simon Burden of the MRC to Neil Brown).<br />

There are some senior NHS Consultants who believe themselves to be <strong>in</strong>fallible and who as a result<br />

harm large numbers of patients.<br />

The MRC PACE Trial appears to be a textbook illustration on the successful purvey<strong>in</strong>g of<br />

mis<strong>in</strong>formation and misrepresentation that foster a culture of animosity and contempt for <strong>ME</strong>/CFS<br />

patients which cannot but be detrimental to many very sick people.<br />

Such animosity, disbelief and contempt towards people with <strong>ME</strong>/CFS is held by many people to be the<br />

legacy of the Wessely School: as noted above, patients with <strong>ME</strong>/CFS cont<strong>in</strong>ue to be neither listened to,<br />

appropriately <strong>in</strong>vestigated nor correctly cared for but effectively abandoned, and the MRC PACE Trial<br />

appears to be part of that legacy.<br />

As Christopher Cairns, father of a severely affected daughter, notes: “what I worry about more is the disbelief<br />

factor, which only guarantees years of deep and unabid<strong>in</strong>g misery” (http://cfspatientadvocate.blogspot.com/ ).<br />

It is time for the Wessely School’s legacy to be over‐turned, for this complex disorder to be recognised as<br />

the devastat<strong>in</strong>g condition that it is, and for those blighted by it to get the treatment, help and support that

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!