- Context of unmanaged liabilities
- Enforceable obligations
- Obligation to not negate ME/CFS legal status
- Obligation to procure ME/CFS medical education
- Obligation to not mislead or evade diagnosis and to provide sufficient detail (FND, MUS, PPS, ‘dysregulation model’ and Long Covid examples)
- Obligation to not abuse power and authority
- Obligation to recognise ME/CFS patient housebound or carer status
- Tests of lawfulness
- Risks – compliance and operational
- Unlawful clinical judgement (examples)
- Expertise risk and reputational risk – medical and legal
- Illusion of legal authority vs medical law enforcement
- Knowledge-gap risk and audit trails (examples plus research-market inefficiencies)
- Freedom of Information Act risks – flawed clinical judgement, discrimination and education refusal
- Third party risk from preceding unlawful clinical judgement
- Liability, malpractice and indemnification
- Irrelevance of official edicts and officialised redistribution of liabilities to frontline balance sheets (vaccination and NICE guideline examples)
- Compromised indemnification, insurance cover nullification and liability for lost income
- Evaluating duties of care and unmanaged risk exposures
- Risk mitigation
- Version history
These compliance documents are live pre-released drafts that are specifically not structured for scientific audiences. Specific scientific referencing can be provided in consulting contexts, not limited to practice management, claims management, underwriting or litigation support for professionals or organisations.
Copyright and redistribution rights are governed by our terms of site usage. Communication of factual or typographical errata or other suggestions is welcome. This content was originally contained here (external link), has been split into separate compliance sections on our website and is in need of significant ongoing update.
A journalistic summary of these documents for lay audiences will soon be published.
It is of acute risk management importance to note that any officialised obfuscation or encouragement of unlawful outcomes is not accompanied by implicit indemnification for discrimination, breaches of duties of care or other improper acts. This is in addition to reputational risk and accompanying freedom of information risk.
Moreoever, lack/incompleteness of central NHS indemnification in certain cases of unlawful decision-making can be mirrored by complications in medical indemnity insurance cover, at best complicating or reducing it and negating it at worst. This is not limited to where death or injury occurs, and may include the consequences of unlawful harm and/or consequential financial loss, with documented audit trails of the types identified above. The empirical consensus is that at best only 5% of patients recover within five years typically, with aggregate implications for claims involving lost income. Given that 1) duration and quantification of purported recovery has been an area of low quality research in itself and 2) that misdiagnoses and underdiagnoses of ME/CFS are endemic, even this percentage may be optimistic.